Can richer teams buy advantage?
Discussion question | This is for ages 10 to 13.
If some teams can afford better sports technology for their athletes, are the Olympics and Paralympics still fair?
The Winter Olympics and Paralympics are also known as the Winter Games. Some countries or sports groups can give their athletes more funding to spend on the latest sports technology. Is this fair?
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I think [your opinion] so therefore the Winter Games [are/are not] fair because [the reason for your opinion].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers to see whether you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (553)
I think richer teams can buy an advantage, so therefore the Winter Games are not completely fair because some countries can spend more money on sports technology. This includes faster equipment, better training facilities, and more experts to help athletes improve tiny details that can make a big difference in races. When winning can depend on milliseconds, these small advantages matter a lot.
According to the official Olympic website, technology plays an important role in modern sport, but all equipment must follow the rules set by the organisers. Even so, having more money can help teams use the best version of what is allowed.
However, I don’t think money automatically wins medals. Athletes still have to train for many years, stay mentally strong, and perform under huge pressure. This shows that the Winter Games are partly fair, but not equal, because while the rules are the same for everyone, the support behind the athletes is very different.
Do you think the Games should limit technology to make them fairer for everyone?
I think so because that way the games will be fairer for everyone to participate. Thank you.
Hello, resplendent_blueberry, I actually liked your comment when I read it, and strongly agreed to your opinion, but I think it depends on who will decide for example, the president of some country, will obviously agree to buy the best technology ever to make their team win, but if there's judges in each country to make sure that every country has the same technology and same techniques. Like this competition, yes it's online, but there are judges all around the competition, for example its against the rules to use ai, so if you use ai you'll get caught, and if you talk too much about politics, your comment won't be approved, and so on.
To wrap this all up, I agree with your idea, but there's one slight change that I want to say, that if there were judges, that are strict and trustworthy, they would make the games even more fair, not partly, but still your comment was amazing.
Bye resplendent_blueberry and topical talkers!👋
I don't think the winter games should limit technology because it is a competition and everyone should do what is in their power to win, but I know some people will say limiting technology is fair on those who are not opportuned to have the technological devices or machines, but limiting it is also unfair to those who have the machines or devices, because the devices are only used for training and not for cheating, so if they have it, why not use it. And I believe that the organisers of the Winter olympic games advice athletes to train, so limiting the use of technology during training is unfair to those that have the technological device because using it is apart of training.
There is no problem with limiting tech because even if an un-skilled person gathers all the sport tech in the world without tech that person is useless thank you
I disagree as I think having a advantage when the people around you are better than you isn’t fair .this means that accessing tech to boost your performance means that the hard working people have trained and pushed themselves to the limit for nothing .
Can you share what you mean by "pushed themselves to the limit for nothing"?
I agree because... Money is an important factor because certain sports athletes can get better equipment than others. I think there should be a financial spending limit, so both poorer and richer athletes have the same opportunities.
Can you explain more on your suggestion of a financial spending limit?
I think if there is a richer team and they buy better equipment and there is a team with terrible equipment then they should split the money so they could each have fairer equipment .
Can you explain more on your suggestion of a financial spending limit?
I agree because... you can’t go to a shop and spend lots of money 💰
I agree because some clubs don’t have a lot of money to buy lots of new equipment kits. So i strongly agree with you 👍
I agree because... some teams can not afford everything/the better equipment and some country’s don’t have enough money and some country’s have a lot of money some it can buy an advantage.
I disagree because the only thing they don't need to worry about is the equipment because at least they have equipment.⛸️🎾⛳️🏉🥅🏈🏐🏀🥎⚾️⚽️🎳🏏🏑🎿🎮🏓🥍🏒🏓🏸🧩🎲🃏
Buzzing Swan I disagree. I disagree because what if a poor team doesn't have equipment? What if a game is coming up and they can't afford equipment yet? Then they won't have anything to use so they will have to forfeit. Also, some teams don't have equipment right away. They have to buy it or get it donated. What if the team doesn't have any fans? Then they can't get donated to.
I disagree with Buzzing Swan because most teams don't have equipment right away.
Some rich teams may try to buy small upgrades that don't change your look, but give a small advantage. They could keep buying small things to get a HUGE advantage to pass by the poor team even when the team can't buy advantages.
I disagree because not all teams can afford to get equipment, and not all of them are poor too, so to make it fair, we need to make a limit for money that no one can go past it, or there will be consequences, so poor teams AND rich team can participate in the competitions with fair equipments.
Bye.👋🏻
Interesting, @daring_drawing. Can you expand on this to think about how you might make this practical? And if there are any other ways to make it fairer? And why you think it should be fair in the first place?
I think the richer team are the one that are going to be the winter game are that games will be fairer for everyone to participate. THANK YOU....
Yes they should limit technology in games if the use of technology will make the game unfair for others also they should limit the use of technology if it would remove what makes a game fun.
Hello, resplendent_blueberry
I completely agree with you.
I agree with you because as richer teams have the ability to provide their team with the latest sports technology, so this would help their team to improve "tiny details" as you said, while other poorer teams can't. Wealthier teams can afford better devices, while athletes from less-resourced countries may compete with outdated or less effective equipment. Also, the way of training itself matters; for example, if a team was trained in a high quality provided with everything that is modern, what is the "barrier" that would prevent them from success? Everything around them gives a sense of success!
Not only the equipment provided, but also the coach. The coach should have at least 5 years of experience so he could provide athletes with enough informations and details that would help them.
For example, in a sport like horseback riding, a country could buy a strong, healthy and trained horse for their athlete in a competition and in this case, they didn't break the rules but took advantage of it. As an evidence, I watched a race before between athletes in horseback riding competition. One person had a healthy, well-fed horse and as well as smart too and I noticed how it helped him a lot and so he came the first. However, it required some efforts from him as you said, because he didn't leave it running alone without the control of him.
BUT POORER TEAMS CAN'T PROVIDE ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS FOR THEIR ATHLETES.
It's very difficult to regulate these kinds of things, money will always be an important factor. You can't ban a horse for being well fed or trained, athletes can't get banned for using better equipment for recovery etc. In the games themselves players could be made to use the exact same models to promote fairness, although this wouldn't really be possible due to sponsors.
I strongly agree with you. Richer teams can buy more technological sports equipment but the poorer teams can not afford to buy those equipment's, and this will make the richer teams to win the game.
I agree because... the technology will help richer teams get better resources. In which it would give them a better idea on what to do and why to do so but not only in the team will get better but the coach will know what to provide . thank you
Yes because limiting technologies is an important rule for our life and for everything. Thank you for asking.
I disagree because... in the ancient games people had fun whithout spending money
That is a very good point. It was more fun to play without AI and electronic devices.
This is a really good comment !
I think that richer teams do have a advantage because they could just buy the best players ( or drivers ) in the world.
I agree because secure teams can afford more
Great explanation, your answer was really detailed.
Thanks for your reply, which aspect of the original comment did you agree with most?
No,I don't think it matters about the money, I think the sports person's knowledge and practise are more important. You can't just expect to know everything because you have money. Poor people can still learn more.
I respectfully disagree with you Super_pie. I disagree with you because to actually have a good practice you need money to buy good quality equipment and have a good quality training facility. Poor and low funded teams do not have any of these or have older models, these things hold them back from practicing well. Making them most likely lose the race.
Well done for replying to another Topical Talker and explaining your opinion.
Yes I think the Games should limit technology to make them fairer for everyone because most people that came from poor country's they can't afford expensive technology . Not everyone can afford good gears and the best technology , and its not fair for others to use basic equipment while the others use expensive equipments . Others that pay they way out are more likely to win , and I think that's really not fair.I also think strength , knowledge , and great spirit are all the things you got to win .
Yes games should limit technology to make it fair, some teams do not have the money to afford it. However teams do not need only technology they need knowledge, skill, and strength. So the teams should be encouraged equally in all they do.
I disagree because if the richer teams can afford it, how about the others ? Will they get a fair chance to show what they are made of. It could be fair only if they can afford it for everyone as well.
Hi, resplendent_blueberry!
I personally think that the Olympics should limit technology to make the Games fairer, but depends in what sports, for example in the Milano Cortina Winter games in figure skating you need the ice skates and the suits that are pretty expensive. In figure skating you need money, but in conclusion I think they should limit the technology, but in some sports they shouldn’t.
I agree with you that richer teams can buy advantages, so Winter Games are not always fair because some countries spend a lot of money on sports technology, and the poorer teams will be left behind and might not win any medals.
I agree with you, winter games is not always fair because poor teams can not afford technology and the richer team will beat their opponent when they use technology. The match between both teams will not be fair because the poor team can not afford technology while the richer team can. So technology should not be used when a rich team is playing against a poor team.
I agree because there is an important point here, athletes will get better equipment than other athletes. I think there should be equal opportunities for everyone
I agree because the other teams without as much money are put at a disadvantage do to them not being able to get or buy the same equipment which makes it unfair.
I totally agree with you ! I think the games should limit the technology because sometimes even technology can make mistakes and a person that does that knows better!
I also agree with you because they can pay the referee to make the player win.
I disagree because money can't buy the skills you did for the sport and without the technology you are just bad at it so use pure skill to win instead of a robot or A.I . that makes you better.
I agree because, richer teams can buy advantage because Matches or games can not be completely fair with the new technology and the rules that come with it and its not equal.
I disagree because... they all should have the same brand ski /snowboards. Because the richer countries can buy the latest technology like more aerodynamic suits and faster skis. where the poorer countries may not be able to afford the latest technology/equipment. There for I see that the richer countries have more of an advantage than the countries that can not afford the latest technology and equipment. The fairest way to hold a competition would be for all countries to have the same equipment and technology this would mean that the most skilled team would win rather than the richest team who is able to afford better equipment.
I agree with your opinion. Even if an athlete is very talented, competing for a country with less financial support can put them at a disadvantage. On the other hand, an athlete who is not as skilled may have a much better chance if they compete for a wealthier country. I strongly believe that in events where the outcome is decided by just a few milliseconds, even small advantages can be extremely important. However, I also think that it is very difficult to make a competition completely fair in every aspect. If we add more restrictions to what is already limited, it could actually harm athletes and countries rather than help them.
I agree because... even skilled players might not have the money to get technology as expected for example what if the poorer team participate in a final against a richer team the richer team would definitely win 🏆 because of the possibilities of technology they have . Thank You
I agree because... really this happen and maybe if this team don't have money some players raise their voice to the court to take thier money and although if the another team win they win by Their high potential in technology.
thank you topical talkers🌹.
Yes to a certain extent, the games should limit technology because it might give a large gap in advantage if they are playing in a match and there is just a team with all the money the in world and they buy all the best gear and use it in the match against the teams that have a budget and are unable to afford. The way that technology should be used is to track the fairness in the game and maybe not to provide more benefits to the players of just one team and instead use to make the match or the game more fair in cases there are biased referees or any such and it is able to make it a fair match for everyone, even if it is your favourite team that loses.
I strongly agree with your comment as you have gone into detail in many ways how athletes with better funding have advantages over teams that cannot afford proper equipment, you also said that technology also automatically dosent win medals which I strongly agree with as athletes can still perform well without proper equipment through hard work and dedication towards the sport to even qualify as an athlete for the Olympics, and only the background of the athletes are different as one athlete could have great equipment and do good and another athlete could have no equipment and work hard and still be able to perform well, which is why I strongly agree with your comment.
Greetings, resplendent_blueberry, after reading what you wrote about the technologies of sports and how it can be unfair I couldn’t help but admire your work. It is splendid and I totally agree with you that it isn’t really fair for teams that struggle financially, especially about the fact that money doesn’t always win medals, through pressure and intense training hard work will win but I don’t guarantee you that’ll you’ll succeed with hard work always, sometimes it can get beaten by talent. But even if you don’t do anything and don’t put any effort into what you do you’ll be guaranteed to fail but if you do work hard you’ll not always be guaranteed with success.
As for the question I think and believe, in my opinion, that they should limit technology for everyone or just personally give everyone a big amount of technology. That way it will be more fair and everything will be equal and more challenging pushing players to train harder, although there are many people who don’t agree and think that the games shouldn’t limit technology so it makes it even and fair, they should be thinking about the teams who struggle financially even if they have potential to be better especially with a bit of technology.
I disagree because... if some teams can afford better sports tech for their athletes the Winter Games are still fair, if they use it properly / the right way and the way they are expected to use it is to improve their performance in a way that they are still following the rules . Because, they are not supposed to just rely on the tech. Because it not only doesn't allow them to play well in the sport when they can't use the tech (maybe because they destroyed/ eliminated the tech and do not have enough money to buy a new one and they have maybe a football match coming up soon )but it also doesn't allow them to learn FYI: they are refusing their opportunity to learn and understand how to improve on the sport by themselves which is seriously funny .
I disagree because... I think it's unfair, if athletes from other richer countries can afford such technology it won't be fair for all participants thanks
I think it’s unfair, so therefore the Winter Games are not fully fair yet. This is because athletes from richer countries can afford better sports technology. Advanced technology gives them huge advantages in training, safety and even recovery tools. For less wealthy teams who cannot afford these things, it is a big disadvantage. Imagine you are from a team with less money and you lose against someone just because they had better sports technology. That would make you feel very upset. In my opinion, the Winter Games should make sure everyone can use the same technology or ban it until it is affordable for all.
I agree because athletes from richer countries would be able to afford better sport technology while athletes from other countries wouldn't be able to afford it and this will be very unfair.
While I partly agree with what you're saying, I think that as long as the principle of the sport/game doesn't change there is advantage for both sides. However, touching on the fact that some teams have more money to spend on better facilities training equipment and sports tech it cannot compete with skill. You can have the best technology in any field but it doesn't always mean you are better than your opponent.
Hello! Thank you for the good comment. I love your idea and I also kind of agree with you that richer countries and advanced technology gives them big advantages. But I wonder how you think about the talents which each players have differently. I can't say that techologies don't affect to sport certainly, but some people who even have poor conditions still be a best player of the world. I am qurious how you are thinking about each players' abilities. And also your opinion about if technology(money) is more important or talents are more important.(Technology vs. talents)
I think they can because they can buy better shoes for running and at home you can do exercises and if you have an ice bath or something you can relax you body before the winter games
I agree because if you relax your body be for the race you can run faster because you have relaxed and you can get a medal for getting first place but if you get second place you still become a winner though so you are not a loser for getting second place ok
From England near the beach.i hope you liked my comment ok
Although I see what you're trying to point out, I also disagree because better equipment can be a great advantage, and the other team can also relax theirselves before the Winter Games, giving themselves yet another advant
I think that any variable that would give any advantage to a certain team should be considered cheating. not all countries have the money to waste on sports technology, that could have been used to improve the country. therefore, the winter games aren't fair because some countries in south africa have naturally born athletes that surpass any other human being but fall behind because the lack of technologies.
the olymipic games is already tech doping (banning techs that give an unfair advantage and ruins the spirit of the game) like the ban of wearing polyurethane or neoprene in swimming compitition as it makes the sport more about engineering than skills and another one could be the super shoes that are banned in racing as it gives extra comfort.
secret is in discipline not cash.
I agree
Can you say why you agree with them, gregarious_pomogranate? At Topical Talk, we love to see students explain why they think something.
I agree because if they are using a thing that makes them better then that will be unfair for the poorer countries and so that they can play properly without cheating. I think they should ban them like you said. I just agree with everything you say 😃😃
I definitely agree! In science experiments, we don't change anything so that all other experiments are fair. If you start changing the way something is performed/played, then it isn't fair at all.
Hello 👋 there are big problems in the world 🌍 like waste people are throwing out items which go in the sea and climate change is a bad thing in the world it is horrible animals and there habitats are dying and wild fires are killing trees 🌳 so it is killing people by getting rid of tees
I think that the winter games are not fair because some country’s have more money than others , and it’s not fair because if they’re a fast runner and they don’t have enough money to buy the special equipment ,as a slower runner could and it doesn’t show us the true strength of the slower runner to the faster one I think it should be provided if they needed it as it’s not fair because richer teams will always win
Thank you for your comment! Remember to try to break your submissions into shorter sentences or phrases: it's far easier to read these than one long block of text.
As I have said many times, I don’t agree with technology usage in sports, but either way, I think that richer athletes have a higher chance of winning as they can afford the extra help. That isn’t fair because some countries might be low on money due to financial problems or even construction in their country.
Ways we can solve this -
1. Ban all technology use in sports
2. If there is going to be technology use in sports anyway, there should at least be a budget if option 1 isnt suitable.
3. Restrict technology usage to only 2 devices allowed per person.
Bad things about it -
1. Technology shouldn’t be allowed as its cheating
2. It can help people who don’t need it
3. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Good things about it (even though I disagree)
1. It helps some people to struggle or maybe are disabled in a way that affects them
2. It could make some sports safer
3. People who have had less training or time to prepare will have a more even match
Technology shouldn’t be allowed at all, but a lot of people still use it, which I have a very strong opinion against, but I can’t be the dictator of everything and I don’t really get a say - when topical talk asked about young people having a say in the news, this links back to that.
Hello charming_television your perspective is very well thought out, but if the technology is used but used fairly and was available for everyone to use it would be completely fair. Some nations might not be as rich as others and the training technology could be more unfair but when the competitions or tournaments are there, the technology could be used by everyone.
I think this is not fair because :
UNEQUAL ACCESS: The major reason that people don't like it as it makes things very very unfair. Athletes from countries with a lot of money have a large advantage as because they have better equipments, training facilities, coaches and support staff that athletes from poorly developed countries can't get!!!!!.
DILUTES HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT: When technology becomes the decisive factor in winning, some argue it dilutes the role of natural athleticism, skill, and human effort, which goes against the core spirit of fair competition in the Olympics.
AGAINST OLYMPIC PRINCIPLES : THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) has said a concern that large disparities in resources can turn Games into an elitist event,which conflicts with their mission to make sports accessible globally.
So this is the reason for me to strongly disagree.
I agree because the money given to them is to improve their skills not to help them cheat ,it is not also an illegal act
I believe richer the team buy advantage meaning that if a country has a bigger amount of money than opponent country it can become unfair . Some equipment make faster during the Olympics and Paralympics it is better for everyone involve to have a fair play in the exercise. it is good for some equipment to be limited
I agree because... when the the other team has more money they can buy more equipment that can boast there performance while the other team that do not have enough money will not be able to upgrade there performance and end up losing all the time
so i think the best solution is the producers should make it more accessible to both the rich and poor
yes because if the team has more sport technology it gives them more chances of winning
I also think that the richer buy an advantage which makes it not actually fair because not all country are rich and influential therefore oppressing the other country's who do not have enough resources to get the tech which makes the more influential country wining the reasons why the influential country wins is because they can spend their money on vast and the latest model of sport technology giving the country the best of opportunity to win
I also strongly believe that the country with the lowest resources have a higher opportunity of getting affected positively and here are my points
1. they are considered to be more physically fit than the influential country we should all remember that influence doesn't last forever
2. we should also consider the technology malfunctions in the middle of the game the country with less resources begins to have a higher opportunity of winning so it is good to train physically than to train artificially so YES I THINK THE GAME SHOULD LIMITE THE TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE IT FAIR FOR EVERYONE
I think if some teams can afford better sports technology for their athletes for the Olympics and Paralympics it wouldn't be fair. So therefore the Winter Games are not fair because the Olympics and Paralympics wouldn't be able to play the winter games.
Thanks!
In my opinion any type of advantage should be considered a cheat code since many poor countries can't afford the same quality of equipment as the richer ones and that could lead to unfair victory. Although skill matters most, it is important to remember that equipment could be equiped with cheating technology. Thankfully there are some ground rules and equipment is strictly checked to make it as fair as possible.
Some unfair advantages include:
•better training( more advanced training centers)
• the use of technology that provides advantages
Some of these can have very small advantages but when it comes down to it that tiny bit of extra help could be the difference between a win and a loss
There are probably a lot of unnoticed talented potential players that just don't have the right equipment to push them to their absolute limit.
To conclude, technology should be limited as both teams should use the same technology to be able to provide a fair and just match for all.
I agree with you, phenomenal_fern, you state that even if an athlete has pure talent, they can still have an advantage if their team pays for more training and better equipment. At the Winter Olympics, many of the sports are not activities that can be won off of raw potential, but talent that needs to be nurtured and improved with the use of new technology - which can only be done with a lot of time and money. I can understand your view point and agree with your conclusion.
i think richer teams can buy advantage cause tech helps us to make sport more better. Like the VAR ( video assistant referee) makes football fair for people being fouled and the main referee did not see it, they can change decision if there was a mistake.
so i think richer teams can by more advantages and also makes games fair.
SO I ASK CAN POOR TEAMS ALSO HAVE ADVANTAGES ?
you touched on a very interesting point here - the link between technology and fairness. Can you elaborate more on this please? Can you think of any other examples where technology (and access to technology) makes games more fair?
richer teams can buy advantage because they have the money to get all the developed materials needed and can get opportunity to win the game
they have developed mindset of winning the game, when they think of what to do and how to do it with thier devices , if they put it to practice by the grace of God they can win the game. thanks
Hi I'm not trying to be rude but can u put bit more thought into this and a lot more reasoning and words.
Hello topical talkers in my own opinion I think that the fairness of the Olympics and Paralympics with sports technology is a big issue. Technology helps athletes do better and makes sports more open especially in the Paralympics where special equipment like artificial legs arms or wheelchairs allow people with disabilities to compete. But not all athletes can get the same tools. Richer countries can buy advanced shoes suits or equipment giving them an advantage over poorer nations. Some people call this cheating because it mixes talent with technology. I think technology should be allowed but there should be rules and support so competitions stay fair.
No! I think it's unfair because other countries give their athletes more funding makes the game less fair and they team with less funding loose.
A good point, gregarious_pomegranate - what could you do to make funding fairer?
Providing funding for both teams to make it fair.
I think it is not completely fair because, richer countries can afford better sports technology and training which gives their athlete an advantage. This is especially true in the winter games and Paralympics where equipment is very important. However, there are rules and classifications to reduce unfair advantages. so, while it is not equal, the competition is still fair overall.
according to the olympic website, i think that the developed and richer team can actually win the competition they are rich team so they can easily access the materials the need to win buy comfortable shoes other things that will help the win
I think richer teams have an unfair advantage in the use of technology. Because there are many teams that do not have enough money to buy those technologies. The use of technology in sports discourages hardwork and makes many people to lack talent.
In fact, the use of technology in sports makes it boring and less captivating. Medals and trophies are used to symbolize hardwork, consistency and efficiency. But if technology is used to enhance the athlete it will be very wrong, the athlete need to go through years of training in order to achieve that goal. In conclusion I think the use of technology in sport should be reduced.
I think that the the winter Olympics and Paralympics won't be fair if some teams have more funding than the others. Because some teams would benefit greatly from it than the others because they can afford sport technology others can't afford to get .
Yes, richer teams can buy an advantage, because the winter games are not really fair and many people have spent there money on sport technology. These include faster equipment, and more help to make athletes improve details that can make a big difference in races. When winning can take seconds, those advantage matter a lot.
According to the official Olympic website technology, technology helps in modern sport, but all the equipment must follow the rules set by the organizers. Having money can help teams use the best version.
I don`t think money automatically wins medals. The winter games are partly fair, but not equal, because the support behind the athletes are very different.
Do you think Games should improve technology to make them more fair for everyone?
I agree because... I also believe that richer teams can buy the advantage. I love your answer because it was very detailed and clear. It was also straight to the point. Keep up the good work!
HI i am willing crab
and i want to talk about the problem above⬆
to me its not fair because the other team are well equipped while the others are not meaning that the equipped team has more chances of winning
You have identified the main problem, willing_crab! Should teams equipped with the latest technology compete only with other teams who are equally equipped? It might make competition fairer but how could you set this up?
I think they can because they spend money on sports equipment faster equipment for better training before the competition. in athletes it involves more strength training.
I agree with your answer. However, it is not very detailed and I think it can be worked on and improved. But good job and keep striving for success!
I think its unfair, so therefore the winter games are not fair because the richer teams can be able to afford all advanced technology and they can be used in training which can enable them to win without any troubles, it can also aid in the help of treatment incase of any accidents, while those teams with lesser wealthy equipment can't be able to train as much as the richer team and might lose to them, thank you.
In my own belief, I think that richer teams can buy an advantage, so therefore the winter games are not fair and will not be fair because many countries can afford to spend more money just so that they can buy advantages and win the winter games.
I personally think that it is a form of cheating and it will make other contestants not to have a fair game. And also, in that kind of game, the host should bring enough equipment so that people will not make it an excuse to start spending money on sport technology.
Also, I would want to ask if other people bringing other forms of technology, instead of using the equipment brought for them is fair enough.
Hello topical talkers, hope you are doing great. I think it’s pretty unfair if teams can just spend loads of money to get an advantage. The Olympics and other big competitions are supposed to be about who is the fastest or strongest because of their hard work and practice, not who has the biggest budget.
If one team has access to the best technology and fancy equipment that other countries can't afford, it doesn't really feel like a level playing field. It makes it feel more like a competition between engineers and bank accounts rather than the actual athletes. I reckon there should be stricter rules so that everyone has to use similar gear, that way we can see who actually has the most talent.
I think the Olympic games are still fair even when teams cannot afford good sport technology. Let us take for example a treadmill, this is a commonly used equipment in the the sport industry, because it really helps with our speed and cardio, but before all this we had early morning jogging, this is a very great exercise to do in morning before you start your day, this activity help a lot because many people who wanted to lose weight engaged in this activity and it actually made a difference in their lives, their rotund bodies went away and they began to see their new selves. This morning jogging also builds our immune system and because of this an individual may hardly get sick on or before a game which makes them strong out and in the field. An Athletes dose not need high end technology to become the best he/she has everything that they need around them.
You raise a good point, unassuming_pear -- that keeping physically fit doesn't require much technology. But at the elite level, some technology can give a real advantage. If that advantage does not reflect physical fitness but instead reflects that more money was spent, is that still fair?
Good day, Mr Jason. From my perspective, I don't think most of the present-day technology is essential at the elite level because before technology, in the past, they were still playing properly and were still breaking records; back then, they were accustomed to outdoor training and were used to the weather conditions compared to some present-day athletes; they were able to use their creativity to solve unplanned activities, especially when they trained in the wild; they were also able to communicate with each other and understand each other; while technology just gives us some advantages today, it is worth asking if these advantages are worth more than creativity and other reasons why we started the game.
I think they are being fair and unfair:
They are fair because they never said that the other team should not buy/get their own equipment.
AND
they are being unfair to the other team, how? Let say we have TEAM A and TEAM B, TEAM A has well equipped materials and TEAM B does not have, TEAM A would be the winning team because they have well equipped sports technology that would help them get more advance in games. But to members of TEAM B it will be like a favoritism to TEAM A and for that there would be no peace.
SO THEREFORE I STRONGLY DISAGREE TO THIS BECAUSE Applying this to law, no one is above the law every one is equal before the law and so why shouldn't TEAM B be able to access the same equipment as TEAM A.
it's not like it was decided that only one team should have the sports technology but lets take it like TEAM B couldn't afford it, I feel like there should be an assurance that the sport technology would be provided for every single person participating in that games, if not it should be banned, so as to gain peace and harmony.
I yes I think richer teams could have a lot of advantage because they have enough money to buy the required equipment that can help them to win in different competitions and as we all know that the world today is developing faster than we can imagine
so the richer team could buy high and expensive facilities that could help them in win the competition thanks for reading and this
is my point on this thanks
I think richer teams can buy an advantage, so therefore the Winter Games are not completely fair because some countries don't have enough income (money) to purchase good and quality equipment for the games might end up losing the competition which is not fair while some countries spend more money on sports technology which means they can afford to have faster equipment, quality training facility, and experts to help improve skills for huge and tough sport activities.
Those countries who don't spend money at all on sports technology and can't afford to have; good quality equipment, quality training facility and don't have experts to help improve skills for sports might end up losing.
However, my opinion is that those in charge of should supply facilities to those countries who have less.
I agree that if teams can afford better sports technology, then winter games are completely unfair.
For me these events are meant to celebrate human skills, hardwork, dedication, But money plays a major role in sports. These events are highly influenced by money and access to advanced tech, which gives the richer team a edge. I personally views how some richer countries wins most olympic medals. In recent events, The top 10 richest countries won over half of the medals, while poorer countries won few or none. This shows that money affects result not just the talents. The main reason making this events more unfair is tech can quietly change the rules of effort(the fairness that everybody should take more to succeed). For example two atheletes with equal talent, same amount of training, but the one with better tech can save energy, recover quick and reduce making mistakes. This shows us tech not just improve performance-it reduces the effort needed to succeed, it just shifts sports into a competition of equipments rather than human limits and skills.
I think advanced suits, lighter equipments and expensive prosthetics will give atheletes an edge which others may can't afford. As a result, I feel atheletes from poor countries may compete fairly following rules, but not fairly in reality. In winter games to uphold fairness , success should depend on skills, determination, hardwork, not how much money a country can spend
I like your comment, especially how you support your points by referring to past medal statistics and with some good comparisons. This is essential to build an argument. Good job!
Let's take your analysis even further, how about expand on it by bringing in more real world statistics. For example, when did wealthier countries begin to dominate winter sports, and how does this correspond to improvements in sports technology over time? Any case studies where technology acted as a game-changer?
Also, don’t forget to define what fairness means to you. Your definition will be the backbone for the rest of your argument and help the readers to understand the standards you are imposing. Carry on!
1. For me Fairness in sports is, the atheletes should rely on their skills, dedication, hardwork and determination for their success. As a sportsmen I see this 4 key things that a athelete must have. They should not succeed with financial resource or advanced technology. When technology or money dominates, then fairness could only seen in paper, not in reality.
2. For me , I think that wealthier countries began to dominate winter sports in 1990's onwards, because I feel that this period is the time where the sports became popular, most importantly winter games, also there was a rapid improvement in sports technology and sports science. Like the introduction of high tech suits, advanced prosthetics, and data based training methods, these are some things gave a clear advantage to richer nations, in my view this was a period where countries started cold war that, who is gonna win more medals in the Winter games.
3. There are several scenario that technology acted as a game changer, I witnessed it in an olympic in late 2010's, U.S's skating team used a top brand's advanced suit in which they won around 4-5 gold medals.
Atheletes from poor countries may follow rules properly but they still compete with a disadvantage. If we need to uphold fairness means success should be determined by human skills/ability and hardwork, not by having access to advanced, expensive technology.
Can richer teams buy advantage? Actually the answer is “no and yes at the same time” In fact, the rich can buy many things, such as education more time (someone helps them or faster), better health and physical care, opportunities and relationships, and these are real features, and also make a difference in our lives, because thanks to education, we can remain something better in the future, and in relationships, a very rare opportunity can come to anyone, but it comes easily because of relationships and others, and this is the reason I said about it "yes", but in other cases, money can't do anything like, for example, intelligence and real diligence, because this is made, it does not buy, values and conscience, because this is a need that God gave us to walk in the right path, and also if you are rich and you don't have a talent, you will not know how to buy it, because this is impossible, and others, the important thing is that you do not depend on your money because the money isn’t every thing and that’s why I said “no”
That was everything bye bye
Can you draw out the two most important points in this comments, to make them clear even for the youngest readers?
Some people think that money is everything, but those who do not know that this money is considered and nothing but it is important, I mean, for example, if someone is tired and he is rich, he will never know how to be well because this is a destiny and a need that has nothing to do with money, and this is the first point and the second point that money is important, and I admit, but there are needs and needs in things that remain from God that have nothing to do with money and there are needs such as education and travel, for example, in these have a relishing with the money
I disagree because yes if SOME teams can afford it others might not be able to. Other countries might be struggling with money and can't pay for sports technology where richer athletes have more money for an advantage and it is not fair they cant control their currency and pay. Some sports technology is necessary (goggles,chalk on hands for gymnasts) and others are 100% needed (footballs and basketballs) to the point where you can't do the sport without them.
i don`t think that money should automatically win medals but it seems that this is the case. 99% of the time the better the technology the more expensive it is, so that leads to why they should lower the prices if they decide to keep technology at least make all of the prices equal and the same quality throughout.
Unfortunately there always has and always will be a story of those that have and those that don`t.I think it would be much fairer if all countries put all funding into one pot and the money is shared out between competing countries . For example if all sport is about the athlete then all the equipment should be the same, same hockey sticks, same bob sleigh. The individual can concern themselves with which trainers or running shoes they like or suit their feet.
Thank you for reading my comment and I hope people put this into action soon, if you have any questions please let me know in the comments.
Bye topical talkers
Interesting thoughts - can you give some other examples of where "money wins medals"?
I think "money means medals" because say people like Messi or Ronaldo have the money to buy better and more advanced sports technology and I cant even count how many football matches Ronaldo's past and current teams have won the same with Messi`s.
thank you for you question Eva I hope this helps.
Hi I'm easygoing_newspaper and I think this question about the winter games is really important because money can quietly change everything . When richer teams can afford high-tech skis advance bodysuits and expensive training equipment , their athletes start the competition with an advantage that has nothing to do with talent .Athletes from different countries with fewer resources might be just as skilled but they do not get the same opportunities to train or use the best gear. That make the games feel less fair ,because the Olympics and Paralympics are suppose to be about determination and teamwork not about which team has a bigger budget .Technology will always be a part of sport but it should not be the deciding factor , so finding ways to support less wealthy teams or limit extreme equipment could help keep the competition focused on the athletes themselves . That is why I think richer teams buy themselves a upper hand so therefore it is not completely fair.
Where do you think the line should be in what technology is fair for athletes and teams to use in training and competition? For example, you talk about high-tech skis and body suits, what about running shoes and swimsuits? Should we limit developments in all sports equipment in the name of fairness?
Hi thanks for your comment Steff! I think the line between 'fair technology' and 'too much technology' should be based on one simple idea: the equipment should help athletes perform safely and naturally , but it shouldn't replace skill or give one team a huge advantage just because they're richer . High-tech skis, running shoes and swimsuits are all design to improve performance ,but there is a difference between normal progress and technology that becomes almost a shortcut. So I don't think that we should stop all developments because innovation is a part of sport , but there should be limits when technology becomes the main reason someone wins. The goal is to keep the focus on the athletes' training, determination and talent not on which teams can afford the most expensive gear.
I think the winter games are not completely fair, so therefore the winter games does not give an equal chance of winning to all the teams because athletes from maybe a cold but wealthy country have a better advantage as they might have ice rinks,snow or just good funded systems that can allow people to get more experiences for their races and help them get used to this routine, meanwhile other countries that are quite warmer and don't have that much wealth and struggle to get access for needed sportswear, gear or even coaches. This means success is not influenced by talent but where your born and how much your country can afford. While the games celebrates everyone's unique skill, they don't always provide a playing field for everyone
By calm_harmonica
I think that depending on where does that money come from, so therefore the Winter games are not entirely fair because wealthier nations can afford and buy cutting-edge sports stuff, giving the athletes an advantage, but, in the other hand, I think that if they can improve their equipment it´s because they´ve worked and deserved it. To conclude, I want to say that I´m always at the side of those who really have talent and dedication, this is crucial in sports.
Can you explain what you mean by "where the money comes from"?
Hi!! Yes, I mean that I think it is fair if the money comes from other sports competitions, not from anywhere else, just from what they have won in the same area, sports.
I think not because even though they’re richer than others it does not mean that they have the best technology for sports also for technology safe a reason for a marathon you could use a stopwatch to see how good you are or you could time yourself. This is not true and if other teams are using it, they probably do not have a advantage technology should be used for sports on special occasions unless the coaches decide that somebody needs to this is my opinion. I hope you guys enjoyed it.
Can you explain what you mean by "advantage technology should be used to sports on special occasions"?
I think richer teams could have advantage as they have access to better equipment like databases using this information which can see how likely athletes are to getting injuries. Also rich clubs have better equipment which can prove an advantage. Even though you still have to follow procedures on technology - which I learned from the live lesson rich countries have access to the best equipment which means the latest technology. I think even though we have rules to make it fair rich teams can slightly twist the rules to have the best chance of winning. Athletes still need to be very good to take part in the Olympics so countries who are poor but good in a sport may not feel the bite even without technology so I have come to an overall conclusion the winter games are fair.
I think that if some teams can afford much better sports technology, then Winter Games are not
completely fair, because success can depend on money such as talent and hard work. Athletes from wealthier countries often have access to advanced equipment , data analysis and training tools that give them an advantage before the competition even begins. This is especially important in the Paralympics, where technology such as prosthetics or adaptive equipment can strongly affect performance.
However, people might disagree because they believe technology is part of progress in sport and that all athletes are competing under the same rules. They might argue that the Olympics and Paralympics have always involved differences in resources and that dedication, skill and training still matter more than equipment alone.
I disagree with this because even if rules are the same, not all athletes start with the same opportunities. When technology gives some competitors a clear advantage, the results may reflect wealth rather than true ability, which goes against the idea of fair competition.
I think that poorer countries that participate would have a disadvantage. So there for the Winter Games are unfair.
I believe that the Olympics and Paralympics are a way to show your own skill and the hard work that went into getting it there. If a participant is from a richer country and that said country provided them with better equipment, facilities or trainers they would have a larger advantage than a participant who trains by them selves.
I strongly agree with you awesome drawing on what you said because how can a country like South Sudan be competing with a country like the United States who are presently the richest country in the world. For example now the United States of America have high tech stadiums , integrated technology for training e.t.c which enable their participants perform exceptionally well at the winter sports because the have the upper hand, living the countries which are not fortunate enough to lag behind because the have poor training facilities.
I think by having richer teams compete with other teams in the Olympics is a bit unfair. As they can buy better technology items,now yes it does have to follow certain rules,but,I still think there's an advantage. I think there should be a budget each team gets to spend on their technology,and they can't use money from outside that budget,it should also be a budget that's affordable for all teams,so that way it's fair,as everyone gets a fair chance.
I think you made a very interesting suggestion here. If you were to be a policy maker, what factors would you consider to determine a budget for a specific sport? Please feel free to give an example from a sport you like.
Yes richer teams can buy advantages that help them compete better so they get better rankings or can get better when using the advantages that they bought so they can get more better results.
No it’s not fair because some would get higher in rankings using advantages so the others who didn’t buy advantages or bought worser ones will not get a good ranking. so i think this shouldn’t be fair so they shouldn’t use advantages/technology to be better at the olympics or paralympics bye 👋 thanks for reading this.
It depends if the other counties are working hard because if they are all working hard and making money it is not fair if some have more money than others. Like Africa for example, their team works really hard but if they are poor then they won't have as good equipment.
Have you made any assumptions about Africa here? Africa is a continent, so there are lots of different countries within in - some of these will have excellent sporting facilities and funding. Can you do some research about some of them?
I believe yes because for example ronaldo can finance training equipment to help him get better however its bad because some of it is unfair to the others
I think that teams with more money get a better advantage in sports like a football can buy more things like for example man united they obviously have more money than Ramsgate so they can buy sports shoes that can make an advantage for them that is obviously amazing for them so it is not fair for players in other teams and its better for fans to watch because its not about the money its about skill not money so it makes the game nicer relying on skill not money. so people can buy less and train more
I think that richer teams can buy more equipment to help them so that leads them to the winter games are completely not fair at all! So even if the richer teams win i think we should still congratulate the teams with less money. What is the point of competeing against teams who cheat.
Many sports are dominated by the richer teams, yet this is not considered 'cheating' - how could you make the competition fairer, knowing that the latest technology will not be available to all?
I think the winter games are not fair because if a team has more than others then they can get better equipment, better places to practice, better chances to win and so that is what makes it unfair.
I think that rich teams finance should be equivalent to teams and national whose finance is in poverty and should have the same options in competitions.
I think that some teams can have an advantage just because of their money and that isn`t fair for the poorer side of the sports teams and also if you train with them special sports technology then you start to rely on the sports tech and then if your in a race or a competition that doesn`t allow sports technology you will be unable to do as well as you could if you didn't use or train with the tech . If you use them but another team doesn`t then you just automatically have a massive head start. If you have more money then that's fair because it`s your teams money but use that money for something else not just to get a head start.
I feel that teams that have the most people supporting them and therefore have an unfair advantage because they are able to buy more sport technology so when in football matches and its millimeters that decide if its offside or not and if a ball in golf is in the fairway or rough these sport technology really matter.
With the Paralympics and the Olympics sport tech shouldn't be aloud to be in matches as that could be the millimeter that helps them to win the tournament.
I think teams with more money have an advantage because therefore they have access to more advanced training facilities and better equipment but it does not always depend on the technology, athletes still have to train, some longer than others to win awards
I think that money should be put into a big digital pot and be shared an equal amount across all countries making fair chances and giving every athlete the same chance and countries with more money should contribute more to this pot. Better equipment does now always mean better skill, it still depends on the training the discipline and the work put into training
I strongly agree with resplendent_blueberry's post but I think sometimes it depends on the coaching
I think it makes it unfair for the other athletes because they may train more but they will lose because other teams are given advantages like running shoes but other are having normal shoes.
I disagree because if someone has more money then its not fair for others. Its because someone might have better equipment then another so its not fair because everyone should have the chance to win. They should all have the same equipment because if someone has better, upgraded items, we would not have an fair competition.
I think that if richer teams buy advantage then it might not be fair for the other teems therefore the winter games are not fair because buying a advantage with your money might not be what the other team can afford but things that can help you train would be more fair as it doesn't affect the game itself.
I think that they are allowed to buy the technology, so therefore the winter games are not fair because it makes an unfair advantage. So yes they buy can the technology but it is unfair to the opposing team, for example the Paralympics if someone can afford a more advanced prosthetic leg it makes it unfair to someone who can't get access to one as good.
On one side, if richer teams can buy better equipment then they should because they want to win or at least do well so why wouldn't they try to get the best equipment and coaches. However, it can be unfair on the teams with less money as they could be just as skilled but can not afford better equipment.
i disagree because people who really need to win wont be able to because people will be using awesome equipment and others will not be able to because they do not have as great equipment. it makes The Winter Games less impressive and more boring. It is because we already know who is going to win looking at their equipment and how its going to play out.
I think teams that get money can buy advantages because money can buy better equipment. This means they can also get better training than other people. When they don't have a lot of money they cannot have access to these things which is a disadvantage. If all teams got the same amount of money, it would be fair.
I totally agree with your reasoning because if teams with less money have less equipment and less training which makes it unfair compared to richer teams with lots of training.
I don't think its fair because some people may have less money and are less successful. Yesterday we did an experiment, we made paper aeroplanes, using the same materials and 1 random object. Everyone got the same result. When we altered them we still got the same result. You might not think that this makes any difference but some people got further than others on the first try. Some of the players have better working equipment which makes it faster or easier to use . This means the other players/ participants have a disadvantage
Do you think this is fair?
I think that it depends on the quality of the players themselves because if technology is too evolved it will become too overpowering and the team or player will have a very unfair advantage. But if people are already have that skill in practice and work in basic fair technology, it mainly depends on the effort put in to it.Also, digital technology can be slightly more advanced and complex.Branding also makes a difference as many companies use different materials and methods in their products or could use more testing and preparation.larger finances will be able to afford this while others could afford weaker technology. A team that has quality players could still be equal to a team with advanced technology.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage because they can buy better equipment and also a lot of different coaches.Also it is how you use it when some players use it in completely different ways.The richer teams or players could buy privet jets when the poorer teams might have to go on a coach for 10 hours and that will affect there sleep.That will affect their sleep which will affect how they play.
I think that it not fair because some richer team can spend more money then other team and if all the player had a technology it would have all the a big difference equipment in sport so I think it better to play fairly . Do you think it fair to have a advantage?
Some teams actually have more money than others because some people work more than other people so it won't be fair at the Winter games. With more money they can get better uniform, better transport, nicer hotels meaning they have a better sleep, hair gel or other accessories to please them, or much more! This gives those types of teams an advantage as the teams with less money may lose to them.
Also, the teams in a better financial situation might get better coaches and mangers and also better trainers compared to the people with less money. If these poorer teams don't perform well they will definitely lose to the richer teams.
They can because there is an advantage in dodgeball and people can buy it also in tennis,football,volleyball and other sports and it is unfair due to a lot of the times richer teams winning a lot of times and people can get very sad and mad for a long time. Like me i really wanna be the best at dodgeball but I can’t because of my classmates
I think that it is an unfair advantage that more economically developed countries can afford to give their athletes more modern technology which will enhance their performance and will mean that it will not be talent but tech which wins people the games. As well as this, countries can effectively pay for victory making the competitions corrupt and in just. I think that sports technology should be used to keep athletes safe, to make competitions fair and to include more people in sport.
I think yea because teams like Real Madrid Liverpool and other teams with that has succeed more then spurs saying that as a spurs fan but I think teams with higher standards should be able to spend on different devices
I disagree that richer teams can buy better equipment to win because it would be so unfair because poorer teams could be losing trophies and medals 🥇 and some equipment is banned because it is to over powered like some shoes 👞 are not allowed the olympics for reasons which make you run 🏃♂️ faster than you actually run
I think richer countries can buy an advantage so therefore Winter games are not fair because of the difference in technology the athletes have access to.
In the mechanical technology, richer countries would have access to better equipment and facilities that would allow them to have better things like bypassing wind resistance or to glide in the air much smoother.
Digital technology like sensors would also allow them to pinpoint inaccuracies in their technique that some countries simply wouldn’t have access to.
Though, technology can only help an athlete so much. While it would bring an advantage that does count, there could still be athletes who don’t have access to the better technology but their technique is simply unrivalled. There have been banned technology in the past that brings an advantage that no human could replicate so the technology that is present in the Winter games, while an advantage, is not a medal winner.
I think the winter game should not have a rules like this so therefore the Winter games are not because if one country is richer than the other country means they can use all equipments if they wish but the other country which is poor than the other country it cannot be used the equipments.
So l will also give a example if the 2 countrys are playing a match the one country is the richest country and the other is poor than the other country if the richest country have better equipments than the other country means the richer country will win the match .
So in my perspective l strongly tell that this is UNFAIR
I think that richer teams can purchase an advantage, which makes the Winter Games not entirely fair. Financial strength determines success long before athletes even get to the Winter Games. Richer teams can afford the best training facilities, sports science, and equipment. In winter sports, where races are decided by fractions of a second, better equipment, clothing, and technology can make a huge difference. These teams also have the budget to train in high-altitude or snow-suitable destinations, where athletes can train in conditions very similar to the Winter Games themselves.
After reading the comments of other Topical Talkers, I understand why some people think that the Winter Games are fair. They say that once the competition starts, all athletes follow the same rules, are affected by the same weather, and compete on the same track. Athletic ability, hard work, and mental toughness are still very important, and money cannot buy a medal. I partly agree with this, as athletic ability and hard work are crucial for any athlete to be successful.
But I agree more with people those who say that the playing field is already not entirely fair because of the differences in resources, recovery, and sports data. The Winter Games are meant to be a celebration of unity and excellence, but until training equality is achieved, fairness will always be a challenge.
i think it is unfair because richer teams have more of a winning chance than the other teams because games need to be fair like in football the games are made fair because they have VAR and offside but other games only have referees to decide .
poorer teams have a disadvantage to winning because richer teams have better equiptment .
Hello everyone,
I think richer teams can buy an advantage but Winter Games are not that fair because some games can have more technology. Some rich teams do not really have the chance to buy advantage because some captains or people who own the games might not allow it.😀
In the topical talk lesson that my class had yestoday we leaned about sports and if we need to have internet or not some sports you might use it but over sports you do not need to . we watched a vidoe and we needed to throw paper air plains in to the bin and who ever got in the bin of next to the bin gets 5 or 10 pints and we had to make the air plains and my group could only use clue .
No because technology should not be aloud because it's cheating and the games would be rigged but even though you think your're not that good in sports you can practice so you can make yourself better at sports and you will end up improving and you'll end up becoming the champion.
I believe if some bigger more wealthy teams can get additional assistance with technology giving them an unfair advantage in the games. I think that this means the teams that are more skills and have trained hard will have a disadvantage against the other teams because of the accessibility they have to little to no tech.
No because richer countries could buy things that make them better and poor countries could actually be good at the stuff and richer countries could be bad at them stuff but buy things that make them better like shoes that make them faster or swimming gear that make them really fast
Richer teams can afford it but if they use it sports it's still rigged and it would be cheating.
my opinion is yes because that the teams can buy a lot of tech and when they compete they use the tech for big advantages but we can also say no because that they might not know that they can buy a lot of tech.so therefore the answer is no the reason to this answer is that the richer people can have proof like if the other team won from hundredth of a second it is basically the hawk eye in tennis and VAR in football.
I think that richer teams can buy advantages, so that makes the Winter Games unfair. If countries are richer they can buy more sports technology, better training equipment and more gear. This should be considered cheating since some poor countries don't have the money to waste on sports.I feel that the organisers should not allow technology in the games as your skills are better with it. This means that you are not depending on your actual skills which isn't fair to the people who are.
I think modern sports uses too much technology and the Winter Games should ban his to make things fair. I think that the organisers should prepare the equipment for the games so that people don't have an unfair advantage.
Do you feel that technology can make sports unfair?
I think it is unfair for poorer countries and teams ,if they don’t have much money to buy all the new gadgets like extra sticky snowboards and better curling things. The richer countries could be worse than the poorer countries and just trying to win.
Hello everyone
Yes i do think richer country's have an advantage because they can buy better technology and use it to improve their athletes performance.
Hello - do you think this is fair?
I think richer teams can buy an advantage so therefore the winter games are unfair because some countries can buy better and faster gear to help them as well as better training facilities . If a team uses special technology and they win by a millisecond that's unfair to the other teams that don't have special technology that would have won if the others didn't have special technology.
This makes sense - can you think of any ways to make this fairer?
No because if the richer teams get all of the good things then it is not fair for Britain to have all of the boring things. I think it is fair to have a bit of technology and not a lot because instead of having it all to yourself even though you are really good and you have a lot of money you could give it to the poor who are not as good as you and who do not have as much money as you.
No I do not think that richer teams can buy advantages because everyone would clearly notice that its unfair, depending on the referee and VAR.
it is unfair because poorer team have less of an advantage and will lose meanwhile richer teams have the best advantage because they have better , stronger equiptment and other teams have basic weak (wooden plastic ect ) equiptment .
i agree because the richer team paid for the equiptment and make use of their money . they paid for it so it is theirs to do so with . it is only fair that they make use with T H E I R equiptment as irt is theirs and it came out of their money and or their bank acount so therefore it is fair .
i believe that the majority of my opinion is that i disagree and it is unfair for the richer teams to use better , and more expensive equiptment meanwhile the other poorer teams have to use basic cheap wooden equiptment . it is super unfair because straight off the bat you can tell /it is obvious to understand who is going to win ,it is like in tennis ,one team has an AI bat were it can detect the ball but the other team has to deal with a wooden thin flimsy bat .
IT IS SUPER UNFAIR !
Some countries can have a bigger advantage because the richer teams can spend more money to get the best technology so therefore the winter games aren't fair .
Yes because they teams who have more money can buy better things for their teams and that can be less fortunate and that can be even better for the opposing team and that meas that having more money can be really useful bu t for the other teams that can not be fair because that is relying on technology well maybe not specifically but maybe if you actually do have a lot of money you can actually buy materialistic things/artificial intelligence n to use against us so it can help but is also not fair.
I think that the winter Olympic games and paralympics are not completely fair, as money can quietly have the effect of an additional teammate. When some nations have the latest sports technology, their athletes not only work harder, but also work smarter and safer. For example, lighter skis and faster suits can cut air resistance, which can lead to an improvement of 2-3% in performing. They may seem small but races are won and lost by millisecond. A personal example of this is school exams. When two students are equally talented, but one has access to online tutorials, practicing apps, better books, it's obvious that the latter has an advantage. Similarly, the olympics. When some nations has the access to motion- tracking cameras, AI-powered trainig software, and advanced prosthetics for the paralympics, it helps athletes correct their errors faster and stay injury free. However, technology by itself is not enough to win medals. Discipline, courage and the ability to perform under pressure cannot be bought with expensive equipments. Many athletes from poorer nations still win medals through sheer hardwork and sacrifice, proving that human spirit is still more important than technology. Thus, while the olympics seek to test the best athletes in the world, the lack of equal access to technology makes the competition not entirely fair. To fully celebrate human excellence, sports must not only focus on who has the best equipment but also who has the best effort, resilience and passion.
I think the richer teams can buy an advantage because with more tech-powered features, it is more advanced than humans and more easier to commence games and stuff like that.
it is unfair because it means they get an advantage,because they will have better equiptment .
football have VAR meanwhile other teams have referees which is unfair and selfish .
I agree because both teams should have an equal amount of tech.
In my opinion I don't think it is fair because talent and hard work should matter first, not how much money your country has. The real Olympic spirit is about doing your best, friendship, and respect. So therefore the Winter games are not fair in my opinion.
No I don't think this is fair at all, since they are given more funding its the same as given more chances or something more upgraded.
Hi 👋 I am skillful_rock I disagree because if you think in 1945 there was no technology so in 2026 we can still handle no technology.
That’s an interesting point! What sports equipment do you think people used in 1945, and would you call any of that technology?
I agree because... back in (like you said ) 1945 people won because of there talent not because of money 💵 or tech wheras now people now athletes just buy their way to winning , so if people can win because of their talent then we can now in 2026. 😁 Thank you for taking your time to read this.
I think richer teams should not buy an advantage, so therefore the winter games are fair because some countries might not be able to afford to buy advantages.yes,some countries can afford the better training equipment and better sport equipment but some countries might not have the same training equipment meaning that the winter games might not be fair .
Hi 👋 I am skillful_rock I disagree and agree because like my last comment. I agree ☝️ because disabled people might need some support with stuff but really good people we not need the help because that is kind of cheating.
Hi I’m rhetorical_whale. I think it depends on the sport, because if it is special shoes for running 800 meters then it would be totally unfair as it makes a difference on your performance. If you were in a swimming gala and you had special goggles, which told you on far off you were for the world record that is not cheating! If it makes your performance better than I think that that is not fair to the other contestants in the competition. So I think that it depends on which sport you are playing!!!!
I think that wealthier teams don't necessarily have an advantage so therefore the Winter Games are partly fair and not at the same time , because sports technology's purpose is to mainly to improve an athletes techniques and enhance the talents that they have. Meaning that well funded teams are at an advantage because their athletes are essentially better and their techniques are better as well as their equipment that they practice with,even their techniques that they use are more refined because of the latest technology that gives them that opportunity.
Leaving the less funded teams with a disadvantage because they might not have that certain equipment to practice with, they might not have the facilities for them to practice and their techniques might not be as refined as those who the latest technology.
But, even though some teams have the latest technology and others don't, sports technology itself doesn't necessarily make an athlete better,it only enhances the talent that they have.
So, in conclusion there are both sides to the argument, technology can't necessarily give you talent that isn't there,only enhance it ,so in essence the Winter Olympics are fair ,but only partly.
i think that the richer team can buy advantage in the following ways;
1. they can bribe officals into giving them point
2.they have oppounity to get better sport equipment
I think because only few sports teams can effort technology , it's not fair.If one team has a special piece of technology that helps with your agility and stamina, and a other team doesn't, it wouldn't be fair for the other team. If not all teams can afford these technologies, it would not be fair to them.
Could you elaborate more about this?
Hello i am busy bird I think no it’s not fair because just cause they are rich they can’t buy stuff that is electricity resources for the winter games.Not fair for poorer people they can’t buy them. They should ban them in the winter games. Thanks for reading this from busy bird 🐦
Yes I do think that richer teams could buy advantage, because they can afford better technology that could enhance their teams performance. I think this would be unfair for the less fortunate teams who can’t afford tech that enhances their performance and have to rely on real talent and have no advantage whatsoever. I think that if you are the person with the advantage you would think it is fair but it’s a horrible feeling if you think you are going to lose before you have even started just because you can’t afford performance enhancing things like richer teams.
I think technology is bad for your brain because it can’t stretch your brain it is just getting your brain to look at a screen 📺 all day and you can get squat eyes if you look at the screen to close to the to ok I hope you liked my comments ok by now
Hi intrepid_grapefruit, what about technology that isn't a screen? For example technology in what athletes wear (special materials for shoes or protections that absorb shocks)? Do you think they make Winter Games more or less fair for different teams?
Hi Elsa and no I think you are correct because if players were different shoes 🥿 during the race you might get eliminated from the race that you competed against other.players they might complain to the ref you might get eliminated or you might not so if you do not get eliminated bye the ref you are very lucky because you should be eliminated ok bye now bye
I think richer teams can buy advantage, so therefore the Winter Games are unfair because the more privileged countries can spend more money on excellent equipment and highly experienced coaches. This can buy advantage as better training facilities, high tech equipment and brilliant coaches can definitely improve skills. This is unfair as the poorer and less privileged countries are overpowered by these unfair advantages. But even then all athletes have to train for many years as everyone else does, but these small differences can be a huge change is fair gameplay and sportsmanship. Money may help, but hard work is even better.
I think it is unfair that richer teams can have more of an advantage for sports because if a team has been training for a long time working hard every day for this moment of their lives thinking they could actually win, then a richer team comes along with half their practice and money so they have a unfair advantage to win. So therefore it is not fair that teams with more money get a higher chance of winning. Money can buy props and help but it cant buy teamwork and effort
I think it depends on the sports because if you get the googles that show you how many laps you’ve done, so therefore I think richer teams can have a bigger advantage for having more money to spend on sports technology,I think the people who want to spend money on bigger and better training facilities they can but I don’t don’t think they should participate in the different races, when winning depends on miller seconds and the little things do matter a lot when racing other opponents.
I think this shouldn’t be allowed in the winter games. But I don’t think money automatically wins the race but they would probably have a higher advantage of winning.
richer people can buy advantages in all sports with money although it isnt fair for the people who cant pay it and the ones that cant pay will always lose which is never fair at all and imagine someone winning over you because they secretly brought for a advantage and if that happened to me i would be very sad and is not fun to lose everytime.
I think it depends because it improves you work but it is a little bite not fair because if the technology makes you quicker the person that was quicker has lower chance to beat them.some sports don't let technology because it's not fair.
i think that when richer teams buy better items it will make significant difference to results compared to if they just train hard and use THEIR skills
No it will not be fair because if someone is really good at sport but then they use tech there going to be automatically better, but if someone can't afford it but everyone else can everyone else is going to be better than that one person and that's not fair.
I think richer teams can buy advantage, so the Winter Games are sometimes not fair because the richer team can get better equipment to win. But, the team has to have a budget so they don't spend all their money.
I think in my opinion it woundn't be fair to others to use basic equipment while others that paid for the best equipment to win. When another team highly expensive gear and equipment they are most likely to win the competition then the team with basic gear and equipment . Some awesome athletes from poor countries never get the chance to show their amazing talent because they cant never afford the best equipment and gear. So therefore the Winter Games are not fair because they leave people out , makes the team with the best equipment to most likely to win.
No I don’t think this is fair because some people may not have enough money to buy better equipment plus it is cheating
What about if the technology is allowed? Do you still think it is cheating?
I think some poor countries that compete with other countries will be a bad idea. so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because poor countries will not be able to buy more sports technology. I think that the Olympics and Paralympics are the way we show our skills and hard work we passed through. if an athlete is from a richer country and that said country provided them with safe and better equipment thanks.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage, so the games are not completely fair, countries with large sponsors and funds can afford to spend loads of money on advanced equipment and facilities, this makes their experience easier, while countries that do not have that much funds won't be able to afford it. This takes away the raw display of talents that the Olympics are meant to display, because a team with more raw talent but with a low level of technology might not be able to perform as well as a team with a higher level of technology. I think that there should be an equalization to make things more about talent than technological advancements.
Richer countries have the budget to train and monitor their representatives with better and faster facilities than other poorer countries, which rely on raw strength and talent.
All in all I personally feel that it is unfair to countries with lower funds as the games will be affected by technology and we will forget that the Olympics is meant to be a showcase of talents and we start depending on technology.
Personally I agree with this because richer teams can buy the best equipment to train however other teams can do a fund raising stool to earn money and save up and buy better equipment but for the paralysed they could buy some equipment for them to train as well and have a chance in the olympics / Paralympics .
Goodbye topical talker
I strongly agree because richer teams have the money to by healthy food so they are on a good diet . But i think that you should not cheat so you can win because it wont get you any where but you could get something taken of you. I think that when you have money it is good because you can get new sport things to help you .
I think richer teams can get more of an advantage because more people will go to see them so that will mean people are paying to go see the richer teams so that will make more money.Therefore the richer teams will get more gear and that will be unfair because they have a really good chance of winning then other teams that are playing fairly have a really good chance of losing.So therefore the Winter Games are unfair for other teams.
They may have some advantage that may top the rest because they will be able to afford more equipment.
If they have more money they may be able to afford more training ground across there country’s and then they will get some more players / participants in their sport.
Runners: They have the ability to buy shoes to make them bounce of the floor and sprint a bit faster than a normal person would be able to do. Some runners will be able to have heart monitors and other equipment to track their health and heart beat. If they are able to do this then they may have a chance of winning more.
Equestrians: Equestrians (horse riders) can buy the best horses but these horses can have health problems for example I know a horse that has floppy feet basically when he walks his feet can go in the wrong way or can go up and down like flippers. This means when he is cantering it’s easier for him to trip or fall. So in this situation he should be allowed to have a few pieces of equipment. His owner has tried many different ways to help.
To sum up my whole argument, I think that if you have a health problem you should have a bit of a help but it all depends on the fairness of the case. I think that it should not be aloud if it’s not fair to other people.
Other people might argue this as they may think it would be unfair for this to happen.
Tech should sometimes be used because if you are a F1 driver they use a protection pad called halo and people should be allowed to have the same equipment so every sport should be fair. 2 of the best Norwegian ski teams lost there gold medals because they made little gapes for air to parse through with ease. All sports should be fare and everyone should have a chance.
I agree because if there is a team with more money they will up grade there stuff to get the best workout before they play a football match and they can shave there legs before the match because then the wind will glide through the wind so they can try to glide by the over side of the wind is pushing the wind they can can go through the wind as well with the ai in in some teck to train footballers with teck and how the can he var in football and rugby in any sport that anyone does there is no reasen to
I think they can because they have more money and resources can buy better tech and advantages to help them be better and win more medals but I do understand why people think not because in darts for example it is harder to add tech to win but in skiing you can easily add aerodynamics to help you win and go the fastest
I think that players shouldn’t be allowed to buy tech and therefore advantage because it takes the talent off the player and will be un fair to the other players that have less money and for the natural skill of the player. adaptions or equipments should be for all the players to make it fair to all the players and also more fun.
I disagree because you don`t also need money to be good at sport like Leister City won the premier League in 2015-16.
I disagree because some teams do not have as much money as other teams, and when there in a match the teams with less money could win . Not by training every day it is because they are working together as a team and also focusing on the game. And by not giving up on there team and helping them improve.
I disagree because football teams may not have as much money but they still can win the cup like when Leister City went and won the Premier League . It wasn't because they had more training or they had more money it was because they were focusing on the sport that why the technology doesn`t always matter but passion does!
I disagree because some football teams do not have as much money as other teams do. when they compete people will think the team with the less amount of money will lose because they wont have good football boots or they wont have the expensive stuff but they might not lose because they could improve there skills and work harder to win by passing to each other and teamwork but it does not matter if you do not win at least you tried your best.
I strongly disagree on this sport technology because not everybody can afford it and some people who their talent is doing sports they will have to leave it because sports technology will make others better than them. This sports technology will ruin some good aspects of sports like disobeying sports rules and it is not everybody that can tolerate sports technology. Using sports technology is like cheating in an examination, for example in a football game of two teams team A and team B, team A uses sport technology win team B a team that lost the match had put efforts to practice and train themselves while the other team did not practice, one the day
I think the richer teams can buy advantage and also can buy disadvantage, so therefore the winter Games can be fair because most country spend there money on sport technology. This can be better training facilities, new football shoe, faster equipment, athletes to improve details that can make a big difference in races. I believe that with the Olympics and Paralympics are ways to show your own skills and hardworks. So I think people should buy less and train more.
If richer teams had a bigger advantage, this would be unfair because if the other cannot afford important things to keep running, they would not get the support they need to keep themselves on the pitch. If one team can’t get something, it would give them bad reputation and hate.
I think that extra technology and more tech is cheating and it’s not fair in my opinion it changes the game and ruins the fun. I think this because you might have an unfair advantage.
No all the teams should have the same stuff not fair if they have different stuff
I personally believe that it is wrong as if AI and technology come into sports it will seem as if they are leaving all the work to technology instead of them using the skills God gave them ☺️
I agree because... Hello I agree your very right on this 😇🙂😊
Would you like to expand on why you agree?
I agree because some country’s have less money so they have worse players and worse sports equipment to get better
I think this is unfair as you should be able to play a game fairly and if you have better equipment it won’t be fair
No,I think this is not fair as every team and country should have equality and equal spending funds as the rest.Aswell technology will ruin the fairness of Olympics this year 🤸🏼♀️🙂💰
I agree because some countries that are less fortunate can’t afford the same equipment and they have a unfair disadvantage.
If richer teams buy an advantage, and they are up against a team that’s not so well off, it can be unfair for the poor team as the athletes on the other team have an advantage, so no, I don’t think it’s fair, they should rely on pure talents, not technology, that’s what I think, anyway, if you disagree or have a different opinion feel free to reply! I will respect your opinion!😀
I agree because... some richer clubs can have an advantage because some poorer teams may not have anough equipment were richer teams can have all the equipment they need .
I agree because people who are richer can have lots of equipment but poorer once don’t have any.
In my opinion, I believe that people should have the right to spend how much money they would like on equipment. AsI know it’s not to fair but I believe that each people have there own indevishwoul opinions for how much they spend and it’s it is now restricted on how much people spend.
I think that richer teams can buy an advantage, however it won’t be fair for the poorer teams as they aren’t able to afford it.
I think that if some other teams in the Olympics have better technology than other teams, it would not be entirely fair. Though technology is very smart and helps us in games a lot, if other teams don’t have that advantage it could change most of the results , and that’s not fair. If technology does changes the results they might have to make a maximum level of it. It’s about how you play not how the internet helps us. But maybe money does not always change it. It’s about how you are strong when playing and supportive to the other teams even if you are not with them.
Thank you
I agree because it will be fair and everyone can participate in the games
No in less teams that have more money can help teams with less money in the Paralympics Olympics to get better technology equipment that don’t really have a much technology equipment it would be fair
I believe that this factor in Paralympic/olympic are crucial and can be used as an advantage or disadvantage but money isn’t always the key factor, most sports use skill and improvements where money only helps on a minor condition but can still be helpful in some instances like to get better equipment and tech.
Not all sports prioritise money though, as many sports use skill and practice to improve performance and well being of people which can margainally effect the country or sports future.
I think that they can buy an advantage
Yes I also think they do, but I think you should specify more.
I agree because, the richer you are the better support they can gat to then improve there skills and if you don’t have enough money you won’t be able to get good support and they won’t get better at the skills. Also if you have more money the coaches can tech you better team work and better passes you can do in the matches
I don’t think the winter games should use technology as people can use it as an advantage although at the same time it could help my making the sport more enjoyable and help people with disabilities. using technology could help but I think it would be better if they just it as a it is for example if a certain team was about to win something but because of technology another team could win which is not fair because we should let technology help us not just control us we should work together as a team.
No, i chose no because some teams might be better than the other since they can't afford to make their athletes better so their technology is bad so it is unfair for the Winter sports.
well done for giving a reason for why you chose "no", radical_flute. What do you think would make it more fair for all teams competing?
I think richer teams have an advantage to get better tech but in other cases poor teams might not win matches because the don’t have the best tech to maybe any at all.This might seem unfair to fan on the poorer teams because they don’t have enough equipment for every one to be the best they can be.On the other hand some teams might have better equipment so they might think there better than them also some people might not need equipment because of talent but people with disabilities need equipment.
I really like how you've thought from the perspective of athletes with disabilities, gentle_kiwi. You have thought about both sides of the argument, well done!
I think that richer teams can buy more thing for advantages so therefore for more poor teams they have to play fair this includes faster workout equipment experts to help them train and little things that make a big difference
I think…technology is fair and I love some of sports.
In my opinion there should be a financial spending limit because some country’s that barely win don’t gain as much money as these big country’s such as the U.S.A. With great runners like Noah Lyles they get stacks of thousands or even millions of money they could save for future events but they should be able to buy more training equipment but no more than a hundred thousand a olympics no equipment during races though
Please tell me if you agree
I think Richer Teams can have a advantage therefore the Winter games are not fair. Victories are always hidden in high grade chemistry products and physics of gear. I strongly stand by my opinion because in Olympic,teams use a special type of wax in the ski races to make their ski glide. So, Rich countries or teams can hier eax technician who test the snow temperature. But think about the countries and team that couldn't afford these technician or modern technology they strong Athletes can even lose by 0.5 second because of a chemistry secret. we are fixing that these games are not fair but if we see the both sides the answer would be the same? According to the Olympic Motto Citius,Altius,Fortius(faster,higher, stronger) the IOC believe that human beings testing technology is just the next step in seeing how far humans can go. In th Paralympic technology is often allowed because without a high tech wheelchair or prosthetic leg some athletes can't even complete. You know what if the Olympic had budget limit?In my opinion it doesn't change who win a medal but it would change the Global economy because sports is not just what we see on a television it belongs to a nation pride and its citizens honour. It will hello developing Nation to prove their strength and potential their market price will start rising. But Rich countries would be in a shock because brands like Samsung, Nike and BMW will stop funding their sports teams and there would be a economical imbalance in those countries. So, Do you think that Olympic should or should not have a budget limit?
Winning in winter Olympics or Paralympics isn't about fairness or talent , it also matters how players adapt to their limitations .
I think winter Olympics and Paralympics needed finance and technology because most country's climate aren't same , even though a player will be transferred to a country where there's great snow but they can't sustain for a long time for instance temperature, climate level this may not be suitable for the mental and physical fitness of a individual player . If the player is really interested in winter games , but some certain circumstances may not be support for practicing in day to day life , this where sports technology and financing takes place . The mostly developed countries in economy and technology can win medals but I'm not assuring that using sports technology will definitely win medals because success depends on hardwork and efforts which is a human quality that technology can't provide .
I think rich team has more of an advantage,
Because they have enhanced equipments, good jersey , good trainers, coaches, so they make a huge advantage in winter Games,
But the skills plays the major role hear .
Secondly as a sportsman you should not cheat
Like paying money to the refree or to the higher authority some things like that, so my opinion is if you cheat I games whith money it's not fair, but if you buy good equipments or something like that is fair
I think richer teams can because they can afford expensive products but poorer teams can't so when they both compete in the Olympics and for example the richer team are wearing technology swim suits but the the poorer team wear the regular one the richer team will win so it wouldn't be fair.
I think it is fair because it might be that the team from that country has less money than other countries.
I think the unbalanced access to advanced sports technology provides significant advantages, so therefore the Winter Olympics is not fully equitable because the ideal of basic athletic competition is compromised by economics, beyond human abilities and education, as the determining factor.
The math of the Olympics' human endeavor equation covers everything, yet the 'best' athlete is too frequently the one who hails from a wealthier technology or a major sponsor a technological advantage when it comes to aerodynamics suits, specially designed skis or sleds, advanced prosthetics, etc.
Yet it still maintains equity with universal regulations for all technology to make sure safety and access are at the forefront. Still, it's incredibly meaningful as a celebration of human endeavor, it's still amazing to see people overcome all sorts of limitations but making funding/tech shared would in my eyes, improve the competition to make it more equitable. There's this very popular metaphor. Three people are watching a basketball, baseball, etc. game. Each one has only a small box to stand on, however, one of them towers over and can watch the game in full view. The other can barely see it and the last person cannot see the game. This is equality. Making sure everybody has exactly the game things. However, what if every person got the appropriate amount of boxes so all of them could see? This is equity, giving every person appropriate treatment depending on their surroundings and their state.
I think richer teams have an advantage. It can make the Olympics and Paralympics unfair. The richer team can buy better items and equipment giving them an advantage. For example the richer teams can buy shoes that are comfortable for them to run. While the other teams can only afford the normal ones. So I think richer teams can buy advantages. In my opinion I think buying advantages is unfair.
I think because some teams are richer than others it gives them an unfair advantage.
I think that all the competitors should have a level playing field while competing to make the Winter games more fair.
I think richer teams can have a better advantage, so therefore the Winter Games are not fair for the other teams because the richer teams will have better sports technology. For example, we learned about a team from Norway that used advanced suits when snow skiing. This can help richer teams to be faster and win. I don’t think every country will have the ability to have extra special suits, because they might not be able to afford them. Sometimes richer teams will not use their talent, instead they will buy the best sports teams. In the future, richer teams will mostly use advanced sport technology rather than their talent.
I also agree that richer teams have an advantage, because a lot of people have more time to practice than others. For example, you may have to spend more time working a regular job, if you are not from a wealthy country. Some people have to go to the local gym to get stronger rather than use advanced or expensive sports technology. One way rich teams don't always have an advantage, is by maybe not selecting athletes with the most talent. The teams without a lot of money could still beat the richer team with only their talent instead of their advanced technology.
I think that it is not fair at all to have sports technology. It makes the process longer and it is not fair for other countries who may not have enough money to buy fancy technology. This means that the winter games are not fully fair and that is not good.
In my opinion, I believe that richer teams should not buy any advantages. So, therefore the Winter games are not fair because higher budget teams can buy advantages since right now it is not illegal to do so. A reason I say this is because lower budget teams cannot afford any advantages but instead have to use the provided suits and gears they have gotten. But, on the other hand, richer teams don't have to worry about any of that because they can just buy items for their team such as better and advanced suits, better gear, and better shoes for the specific sport. This can make it unfair for the opposing team because they do not have advanced gear which can make it extremely hard for the team to win the game. In our topical talks session, it stated that higher budget teams can have a higher percentage of chance to win because of their advanced suits and gears. In conclusion, this is why I believe that richer and higher budget teams should not buy advantages.
I think it’s fair because more people can play and enjoy even more people can participate , they could also learn more skills and show their talent. It can also help coaches and the teachers to make it easier for them to teach.
On the other side I think it’s not fair being if people who doesn’t have enough money to afford it they can’t be better thank people and learn more things it can also make people jealous and upset seeing richer people being able to afford it , it can also make it harder for coaches or teachers to teach them.
I believe it is not fair if richer teams can afford technologies for their team, because of this the Winter Games are not fair. This is because if richer teams buy technologies, they can gain an advantage over others. This makes it unfair for the other, less rich teams that can't afford it. This also takes out the skill players need for the game and replaces it with money. Fans will also find this boring because of how predictable it might be with rich teams. Sports are about fun times in games; buying technologies gets rid of this. I feel that these teams can still participate. They shouldn't be allowed to buy technologies that give an advantage like this. They should be checked and made sure that they aren't cheating. In conclusion, I believe it is not fair if richer teams can afford and buy technologies that help win. Therefore, the Winter Games aren't fair and these are reasons why and how they make it unfair; as well as how to fix this issue.
I think, true equality in games exists only when players depend on their talent, discipline, efforts, and strong mindset to reach high levels. Victory should not come from expensive tools and economic power. When money and modern technology starts deciding the outcomes, justice and equity remain only in the theories amd not in the events. Athelets from the economically weaker nations may rigidly follow the rules and regulations , yet they face unfair situations . Innovations like specially created sportswear, upgraded prosthetic limbs, technology based practice system create big advantages for advanced nations. If equality and justice are truly valued then the outcomes must come from an individual's ability and talent not from high priced or advanced equipments.
Hello frank_jornalist here, I think that sometimes rich teams can buy an advantage in a competition in the Winter Olympics but not all the time that is true. One reason is if two people of the same skill go against each other in the Olympics ,but the only different is that one has a low budget to use for stuff he needs to train or get better. On the other hand, the other guy has and uses high tech to help him win like faster and better snowboard in snowboarding. That is a very unfair advantage for the other person. Sometimes money does not matter. For example in the Olympics a guy from Turkey went to the Olympics shooting contest with no high tech glasses to help you aim better like others. He only had a shirt and glasses and still won 2nd place out of everyone else in the place. This shows how money can't always beat skill in some cases of in life. But in most cases rich people will most likey win even if other people are a little better than you or are way better.My last reason and example is that weath can buy the person better gear and equipment, but the people can cheat and pay very good people to help them or to put something inside the thing to be better. To sum it all up, this is why rich people will have a advantage in the Olympics, but in some cases money won't win.
In my opinion, the richer teams could possibly buy an advantage. I feel this way because in Norway their skiing team was caught cheating by using a very special kind of thread to cheat. This team is very well funding meaning they are mostly rich in some sort of way. However, they got caught red handed and were unfortunately disqualified from the tournament. Although, another reason why the rich teams that could buy advantages is that the Los Angeles Dodgers use their money to buy high ranked Baseball players. For instance, Shotei Otantai and Kyle Tucker which one is getting paid over 700 million dollars to play and the other being a 240 million dollar contract. Honestly, they had bought two of the best players in Major League Baseball. Finally, the last and not least the final reason I feel this way is because if the richer teams buy the advantages it would be uneven like a scale but, if they don't participants can all play freely and fairly. In conclusion, I feel that if the richer teams use advantages it could lead for the matches to go down-hill and get bad revenue.
I think the fact that some countries have more money,and can pay their way to the top by using their money to purchase beneficial equipment is not fair.I believe this because the poorer countries have to rely on pure talent and they can't use technology to improve their play.
Another reason I believe this is because some richer countries abuse the money and other countries cannot buy the same equipment,I believe that every country should have the same to equipment to train and not give others an advantage.
These are some reasons why I believe the Olympics are not fair in fact every year most of the teams that win their events come from wealthy countries.
Another reason I stand still on my claim is because countries like Nigeria cannot even afford good enough shoes to run in meanwhile technology to improve their performance.
I think the Winter Games aren't completely fair, however, this is understandable because if you have access to better materials you will obviously have an advantage, but the equipment you are given isn't the only factor to your success. For example in our class we had an exercise in which 5 groups were given different quality materials to make a paper aeroplane, although some of us had lesser quality materials our better expertise gave us a better outcome, even when stacked up against those with better materials. This goes to show that even with lesser quality materials(or in this case equipment) you can still come out on top, it also shows proper experience and expertise is one of the major deciding factors of whether or not a team is going to win.
I think that richer teams should not be able to buy newer tech to support their team, and even though they do have the fund to buy the latest tech the teams shouldn't be allowed to. I say this because what if the tech the teams buy is better than tech that other teams cannot afford. Also some teams could be in bad training areas while the more funded teams are in a building with a lot better equipment and materials to play on. The advantage to better materials to practice on in any sport is very important because the lesser funded teams may play on turf in their training area. A sport such as soccer where the teams usually play on grass outside but while training if the less funded teams play on another material, that could mess up their play in the actual game. while the teams with more funds could buy fake grass to play on which almost works as good as real grass that the games use.
Another reason why the teams with more fund would have an advantage is because in soccer, players use cleats like football ( or American football depending on where you're from) and some cleats are based on certain things. An example for this is cleats that are based on power, speed, and comfort which costs lots of money, these cleats can be bought by the teams with more fund while the lesser funded teams can have old and beat up cleats which would cause a disadvantage since it could cause the players to trip while dribbling the ball or running in general. Lastly, teams with more fund could pay the managers/ referees so that one team could lose on purpose because the ref doesn't call fouls.
Yes, if a few teams can afford better sports tech, then the Olympics and Paralympics are still fair, but it depends on if the tech doesn't change the rules of the game. This is because if the tech is advanced and gives a certain team a better advantage, then the game won't be fair at all. I mean, it may be better for the people supporting that team, but it does nothing for the opposing team.It also can lead to the team that has that advantage having it's downfall because the fans who don't support that team could start to debate that the team makes the whole game unfair. On the other hand, if any team has enough money and invests it on something that doesn't change the whole entire game, then it would give the other team a chance to win.This is good because, well, the fans will still get mad if their team loses, but at least it won't lead to an argument on if the team should even have its technology or even be a team, therefore if a team has some money, then as long as their investment don't change the rules, the Olympics and Paralympics are and will be fair.
In my opinion I think affordable tech in sports is fair.Some tech that can improve the players playing are personal record timers, exercise apps, and health monitors.On the other hand tech that are used for cheating is should be banned.Fairness is important in sports and cheating devices can harm the whole sport itself.
In the Olympics some tech is banned while,others can be used to help without being counted as cheating.I think affordable tech for health in sports should be allowed because what if a players heath is not in the best condition without the coaches knowing it can cause harm to the players and the players might not play for a while or sometimes even ever again.It is important it is affordable because some teams are probably on budget and some high order tech can be out of range,therefore it has to be in range.
In conclusion affordable tech is fair and should be allowed.
I think that technology is only a supportive tool,, true success ultimately comes from an athlete's physical ability, intelligence and hardwork. So,, therefore,, the Winter Games aren't fair.
From my perspective, I believe in Human Excellence at the Core. The Olympic games are fundamentally a platform for showcasing human physical and mental excellence. No matter how advanced technology becomes, it remains only one component of Athletic performance—not the driving force. Technology can marry me enhance on athletes existing skills to a limited extent.
From another view point, Strict regulations and governing bodies play a crucial role. To prevent unfair advantage IOC and various Sports federations maintain strict and well defined regulations regarding equipment usage, design and materials. For example, the hi speed swimming suits introduced in 2008 were later banned to preserve fairness.
In conclusion, technology doesn't undermine the fairness of the Olympic Games;instead, it enhances the safety and development of sport. Human talent and long-term dedication remain the true driving forces behind both the Olympic and Paralympic Games,,, which is why they continue to be fair and relevant.
Thank you💕
In my own opinion, I am willing to say that its a bit unfair because there are rich athletes in rich countries that can buy more advanced high quality and performance technologies for there training or others. On the other hand, there are poor athletes that are in a poor countries that can’t afford that much of technology at all and they might even don’t have technologies at all. Of you asked me if I agree or disagree to this, I strongly disagree to this because imagine if your favorite athlete lose to his opponent because his opponent was using very high technologies than your favorite athlete. To solve this issue, I thought about having a rule to this problem so everyone can limit their technologies to make it more fairer to every athletes. If you were in an athlete who got beaten by your opponent and he was using more technologies than you, how would you feel or solve this by your own?
I agree with you. If you are an athlete and you get new equipment it is definitely going to help do better than than the old one you have. That is if an athlete for example gets a super light shoes instead of heavy ones, they are going to run faster because of this, so having this new equipment is much better.
But sometimes it is like cheating when you compare a rich and a poor country or athlete, but again it depends on how you use it. Some people say it is okay, others say it makes the game feel unfair. Some athletes get way more help from their equipment than others and some just use their money to buy a win but i believe it should be more about your talent and not just about who has the most money as your talent aslo gives an hedge over one with no talent and just only money.
I think the countries that are richer have a HUGE advantage, which makes the Olympics and Paralympics unfair.
Countries like United States and Germany have big Gross Domestic Product (GDPs) this means they can buy/create tech for their players. The countries with lower GDP like Afghanistan are at a disadvantage because tech is expensive to buy and to create. Many people will say "The only reason why they are losing is because of their money. It’s not our fault they’re broke." I think this is also the reason USA has the most gold medals in the Olympics. Not only do we have great athletes but we also have great tech to train the great athletes to be even better athletes.
This is why I think it is unfair to other countries that the Olympics is basically based off of the money of the country. After the Winter Olympics, I can test my theory and see who has the most gold medals. Will it be a GDP superpower or will it be a not well known country?
In my opinion I think it is unfair that some countries or sports groups can give their team more funding to buy new technology. Some other teams might not have that funding. That gives one team more of an advantage to win the Winter Games. Maybe there could be a certain amount of money available to all teams to spend on technology, and no teams could go over that amount. What are your opinions on the Winter Games?
I think that the Winter Games are not fair because games like this expect talent that's natural and not from technology. Unless it's for disabled people. And if they do the richer teams would always win the games. The poor teams might always lose because they don't have a lot of money to buy the latest sport technology and lose even though they worked hard without technology. While it also helps people be safe and not hurt themselves, I think that I might be cheating just the slightest bit. In conclusion, I think that the WInter Games are not fair because games expect talent that's natural.
Hello, I am straightforward_eel from Atlanta, Georgia. I think that some athletes, especially some who are already talented or not as talented as others, should not be able to gain an unfair advantage by buying more advanced technology using their country's extra funds. Many countries participating in the Winter Games might not want the technology, or don't have enough to afford it, too. Also, the Olympics are supposed to be a test of skill, dedication, hard work, and where you can compete globally, in front of millions, possibly billions of people. If you used technology to boost your performance, it would be a test of the tech, not you! To even make it to the Olympics, you must compete regionally, and nationally. To ruin all the hard work others used to get here makes using advanced technology even worse. Therefore, getting advanced technology would ruin the whole purpose of these competitions and would ruin the experience not only for just the people watching, but the people competing as well!
I think richer teams can buy advantages. This makes the Winter Games unfair because, if it is only rich teams that can afford sports technology, it will not be fair to other teams that cannot. This will make them to be losing to the richer teams even though they have more skillful players. For example, the richer team's tech is programmed to improve their training skills such as agility, strength, grip, fitness, speed and balance can give them an unfair advantage over a team that cannot buy tech.
I think the fact that teams can afford lower quality or higher quality sports technology for their athletes is unfair because during sports, coaches may use sideline tablets to replay footage of the game to know when a team member needs to be out of the game and switched to someone else. Some teams can afford higher quality ones so they can know exactly the right switches, while less wealthy teams may not be able to afford a good sideline tablet, and that can mess up their choices.
I think that the rich country teams can buy their advantage so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because they buy extra equipment to give them a better chance of achievement. Extra equipment like for example it's a swim competition and a certain country buys a swim suit that can go through water easily. This team would win because of the extra things in their swim suit. The presentation stated that a team got disqualified because of extra tech and things inside of the sport equipment. In some cases it may not be found or be against the rules but in the Olympics this is breaking the rules. When rich teams buy their advantage it can make challenges unfair.
Can richer teams buy advantage? That's a really good question. In my opinion it is unfair for teams to buy advantages because some other teams may not have the money to do the same. That is like a football manager paying a referee money to not call fouls on their team but keep calling fouls on the other. This is very unfair because it makes the game less fun to watch and less of a competition. At the same time, I do believe that it is okay in some cases like in Formula 1. Formula 1 teams can have MUCH higher tech than their competitors as long as they meet regulations. Let's take Red Bull Racing for example. They have better tech and aerodynamics than other teams because they have more money but it is still fair. Now when it comes to football, I have a different perspective. If at team like real Madrid has these crazy boots also known as cleats, increase running speed by A LOT then that wouldn't be fair. Think about it, players that are using normal speed will be way slower than players using artificial speed. That is why I have mixed feelings about it. Then, again overall I don't believe that richer teams should use tech for advantages as long as it's not Formula 1.
Hey! So, the winter games aren't all that fair and i'll explain why. First, since richer teams get more funding due to their performance rates, they can afford to buy 'illegal" items that help give advantage in the big game. Aswell as spending money on sports technology that helps them win. According to the Olympic Committee (IOC), Sports bodies must "define, monitor, and mitigate "disproportionate" performmaance advantages.
Meaning, they don't allow "illegal" sports tech that could possibly help.
Hope this helps!
In my opinion, I think that when countries or team give their athletes better sports technology it make it unfair for the others who don't have good sport technology like other richer countries so then they wont be able to play with those benefits look the richer athletes have.When other teams have better sports technology they are most likely to do better or rank higher than other teams without the expensive sports technology.Therefore in my opinion I believe it is unfair for the winter olympics and paralympics.
In my opinion it is not fair for some teams to buy advantage because if teams have better stuff there is a really big chance that they are going to do better. For example when we were doing airplanes in class my team got crumbled paper and some other teams got good paper. The people that got the good paper there airplane ended up hitting the board and our airplane hit the bottom part of the board but that wasn't the target.
In my opinion, in the olympics, new technology is not fair replacing the athletes skill is not fair to others who do not have as many funds .Using technology can be considered unfair in several ways, often stemming from unequal access, or the exploitation of personal data. Technology can perpetuate existing social, economic, and making it harder for certain groups to succeed while offering advantages to others.
Do you think it is fair if you buy advantages to compete in a competition when you have the money to afford it. I think richer teams can afford the advantage so therefore the Winter Games are not fully fair because some teams cannot afford these advantages. This includes equipment, better trainers, and more experts to fix their small mistakes that they make when competing. However, I still don't think the money could help them win medals. They still have to work hard to stay strong and stay mentally strong when performing in a crowd to have confidence in themselves. If they don't do these things then they could lose how much they work so hard for. This is fair because buying the advantages can give them a better version for the competitors. To sum it all up this is why it is fully not fair for people that can afford advantages. Even though the rules are still the same, everyone has a different inspiration from other people.
I think yes the richer teams can buy an advantage so therefore the winter games are fair because even if some teams have a lot of money they can't buy the win it matters how good they can perform infront of the judges some other teams don't have a lot of money they can still win because of how good they can perform even if richer teams can buy better equipment it doesn't matter as long as they are good at what they're doing.
Hello, my name is reflective_jambul and I believe that, if rich teams bought expensive high technology for their players, the Olympics/Paralympics wouldn't be fair anymore. This is because teams with less money can't buy good technology for their team, and the teams with better technology will have an advantage. For example a rich team has a technology that can predict the opponent's next move, since the player knows the opponent's next move he can counter it. Also for teams with less money they can't do anything about it, because it's legal. Even if they can counter it later on, it will be too late. The team with less money can only buy bad or mediocre technology, which forces them to have less benefits than the team with high technology. The rich team can have a lot of benefits like, good health checks, tell them what to do, tell the next opponent's move, etc. Mediocre/bad technology can have less benefits than high technology, for example a team can only have mediocre tech so they can only have health checks instead of things like predicting the opponent's next move.
Would you think it would be fair if richer teams can buy advantages?
Can richer teams buy advantage? That's a really good question. In my opinion it is unfair for teams to buy advantages because some other teams may not have the money to do the same. That is like a football manager paying a referee money to not call fouls on their team but keep calling fouls on the other. This is very unfair because it makes the game less fun to watch and less of a competition. At the same time, I do believe that it is okay in some cases like in Formula 1. Formula 1 teams can have MUCH higher tech than their competitors as long as they meet regulations. Let's take Red Bull Racing for example. They have better tech and aerodynamics than other teams because they have more money but it is still fair. Now when it comes to football, I have a different perspective. If at team like real Madrid has these crazy boots also known as cleats, increase running speed by A LOT then that wouldn't be fair. Think about it, players that are using normal speed will be way slower than players using artificial speed. That is why I have mixed feelings about it. Then, again overall I don't believe that richer teams should use tech for advantages as long as it's not Formula 1.
27 Jan 2026
Yes I think richer teams can buy advantages because they have more money then the other team. So then they'll buy better tech then the other team and most likely win because of it.This is very unfair as if you make a bet with someone about who will win and you pick the richer team you'll most likely win the bet which is really not fair. This is really bad because it ruins the experience for fans as it's really not a surprise of who wins, which would ruin the whole game since the whole point is for the winner to be a surprise. Another reason why this is unfair is because the richer team has better tech and gains a bunch of advantages from it. Although a way to make it fair is to give the other team better tech so the game is more fair and the opposing team has a better chance to win. Also another reason why it ruins the experience is because the team that's not as rich will lose and because the game wasn't fair.My last reason to why this is unfair is because the team who is not as rich could of won if both teams had the same tech.My finale reason as to why this might ruin the experience might be because one team who could've won will lose to the richer team. This is why I think a rich team can buy advantages.
I think it depends on what technology it is.If its like chips that can track your every move and correct mistakes then is does reward a better advantage but if it is snowboards with enhanced aero dynamics the disadvantaged teams can use calculators and engineers to make similar prototypes to enhance performance.
On the other hand ,priviledged teams could use jackets that increase stability which would grant the disadvantegded team a decreased chance of winning.This means that it is no longer the athlete's ability that made them lose.In conclusionit is not always fair for richer teams to use their money to win so i believe the same equipment should be given to keep games fair.
Olympic and Paralympic teams have a wide range of money and profit and not from their country alone, as there profit can be contributed by allied countries and Olympics and Paralympic’s can be unfair at some points but not entirely as if teams have more money, yes they can get better but it may minimise the athlete in questions practice and improvement where tech and ai can make them practice less as they could manage heart rate and other important priorities.
Many views can be debated on this as this can be bad and good at the same time as teams range from good teams and worse teams but unfortunately athletes can’t change where there from so we should treat all teams rich or poor how we would treat other teams to gain athlete’s confidence and live for the sport which can attract more fans and audience which can make more financially poor teams more richer which could help athletes dietary choices change for the good and make fitness and performance levels increase drastically over a short span of time.
However, many sports don’t require money all the time and mostly prioritise skill and talent which is a good thing because athletes practice and can improve at their own pace and levels which can make them practice more accordingly and accessible for anyone who has dreams set on this sport. Technology does have a place in sports, but can’t overcome all tens of thousands of athletes dedication and love for the sport and their home country they have been dreaming about their whole lives and careers for you to enjoy it like them growing up with less tech and advantages.
I think that unless both teams have equalized equipment and both can afford them, sports groups being allowed to spend money on the latest sports technology isn't fair, as it is usually works better for the opposing team. If one team can't afford equipment that the other can't, one will have an advantage, and the other would have a disadvantage.
I think the Olympics and Paralympics are mostly fair, even though some teams can afford better sports technology. Athletes still need to train for many years, keep their bodies strong, and stay focused. Technology can help athletes train better and recover faster, but it cannot replace talent, effort, or determination.
However, some people might disagree with me because richer countries can buy advanced equipment and use modern training facilities. This can give athletes an advantage, especially in the Paralympics, where special equipment like prosthetics can be very expensive.
In my opinion, the Olympics and the Paralympics are still fair because all athletes compete under the same rules. At the end, success depends more on hard work, skills and determination than on money and technology.
I agree because I think that even though some countries have more access to money, resources and AI, the objective is the same; TRAIN TO WIN.
I think this situation is not completely fair, and therefore, the Winter Games are not entirely fair, as some athletes have advantages that are not entirely based on their talent, effort, and dedication, but also depend on the amount of money their country or sport organisation is willing to spend. Therefore, athletes from countries with less funding may be equally talented and dedicated, yet at a disadvantage.
However, one could also argue that technology has always been a part of sport, and teams should be rewarded for their good planning and ingenuity. Nevertheless, in order for the Olympics and Paralympics to be fair, technology should not have an impact on the outcome of the event, and athletes should compete based on their skills.
I think that it can be good and bad.
I believe this because the good thing can be that the richer teams win more and they gain more things than the poorer or countries that are in poverty. They can also show off their wealth and boast about themselves(and their people).
The bad thing is that the poorer countries may have worked excessively hard to win 🏆 , but the richer countries win due to money, resources and AI 🤖.
I’m more on the NO category because I like people winning fair and square, not by cheating and impartial opinions(and rules).
The question is, should we reduce wealth all together? Or should we make every country equal?
I believe that richer teams can buy advantage so therefore the winter games are not fair. Using technology in the winter games can create an unbalanced field. Technology devices are extremely expensive so that some countries cannot afford them however others can, so this is injustice and inequality. It is like racing 2 athletes but one ahead with 10m. Technology can overshadow the athlete's efforts and make it harder for others to compete. It can make them lose hope and ambition and also can make them feel weak. Does this make sense?
Technology can be so effective in some sports like cycling. Countries can afford to their athletes, Strong bicycles and luxury suit that reduce air resistance. However, technology is not the real reason of winning in some sports like football. Football depends on pure skills and physical health moreover money cannot buy either health or skills, but it can buy the best coach and player. For example, Pele (a great footballer) used to play bare foot, but he was forced to play with shoes in championships.
To conclude, money cannot do a hero, but it can help in doing it.
I think that the winter games are still fair because technology does not decide who wins, it just decides how accurately we measure human limits.
Sports is about testing the best human performance possible at a given time. Every era has its own advantages. Earlier, athletes competed on cinder tracks. They wore heavier shoes. They trained without the knowledge we have from sports science today. If we label today's technology as 'unfair', we must also acknowledge that past records were unfair to earlier athletes, which doesn't make any sense. Most importantly, technology is available to everyone at the olympics level. No athlete arrives with any hidden equipment. Everything is checked, approved and regulated. If technology solely determined winners, all athletes using the same gear would perform equally, but that's not the case. Why???
Because, pressure, pain, and decision making cannot be improved through technology. In the final seconds of a race, when lungs burn and legs shake, technology fades away. What remains is the athlete's mindset. In the paralympics, technology doesn't create unfairness, it removes disadvantage. Advanced prosthetics doesn't provide any superpowers, they provide athletes a fair chance to compete based on skills rather than limitations. Others may disagree that technology makes records feel easier. However, technology does not run, jump or ensure pain, but athletes do. So when records and broken today, they don't prove that succes is cheaper, they prove that human ambition when matched with innovation, can go further than ever before.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage because they can get better players and equipment. Poorer countries can't get better equipment and then their players are worse
I think richer teams will sometimes be better and we should all be able to play sports fairly . But money cant get you wins and you still have to practice, even lots of amazing players have had to have natural talent and play everyday and persevere so it might be unfair to country who are at crisis. Also the Olympics make it fair as the ban running shoes that give extra strides which makes it fair. On the other hand tech is vital for modern day sports, tech can help training and doctors to see how there players are for example their heart rate body temperature et cetera so concluded sports are sometimes fair but not to equal for some Olympiads how to go through great pressure and challenges
I think that only richer countries can afford to buy tech for their teams, so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because countries who are less fortunate will not have the same opportunities or support, putting them at a disadvantage.
I think that it is unfair that some rich countries can buy all of the technology that they want and some poor countries or countries in war wont have the same technology and equiptment so therefore the winter games would be unfair.
I don't think the Olympics and Paralymics are still fair if some teams can afford better sports technology. Not every sports team is as well equipped as the next and I think either everybody should have the resources for the better sports technology, or no one does. That's what's going to make the game really fair for both teams.
I think some countries have more money than others so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because money may cause a disadvantage to other countries that are less fortunate.
I think it is unfair and fair because not all countries are rich and cannot afford the tech and/or the equipment. I also agree because using tech could avoid injuries and find the things that people missed. So therefore i think the tech could help us prevent injuries so now the games are safer
i think money can buy an advantage in the winter games, therefore i do not think the winter games are very fair.
Thank you curious_song - you said you think money can buy advantage in the winter games, can you give an example of this?
I think it's unfair to all the teams or the countries that doesn't have as much funding as like USA or the UK but as long that everyone can get it i think it would be fair instead of buying high tier equipment that everyone cant get it should be fair
i think money can buy an advantage in the winter games, therefore i do not think the winter games are very fair.
How do you think money can buy advantage in the Winter Games?
I believe that if oplimpians use tech they should all get the same tech so the less fortunate have a equal advantedge so they all are no better than each offer because of tech
I think that it is unfair ;not every body has the money for the equipment for this technology which gives a unfair advantages
Thank you unconventional_power - how do you think the technology give an unfair advantage?
HI MS Siriliya, some technology improves the athlete very much, I have tried myself when I was practicing swimming at the beginning, I was swimming with no equipment, and I was very slow, but when I used the swimming fins it was a huge difference what I was doing in 30 seconds was done in only 15 so using these types of technology will destroy records like a piece of cake and destroying what other people trained so hard far so it is not fair.
Thanks positive_tamarind - I see your point
i think that the winter games should limit technology because what if there is a person that joined the winter games and they can't do anything correctly and they can use a certain technology that will help them for a while but at the same time they can use it for cheating and that won't be fair so they should limit certain technology
No, they're not because some teams might not have the money for sports technology so if they were to compete against another team with sports tech the game wouldn't be fair.
think the richer teams have an advantage in so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because they may be able to buy the trophy.
I think it could be fair and unfair at the same time because there could be richer countries and poorer countries. The rich could spend more on technology witch means the poor countries could have an unfair disadvantage. So i think the winter games are absolutely rigged.
However the countries with less money could do mussel warm ups and war downs to enhance performance and give them a skill advantage.
thank you for letting me share my point of view for this controversial headline
.
i think having more technology makes it more unfair because they an get an unfair advantage in the winter games if they have more money and the future of sport could become based on technology and not talent.
I feel most people don't think that if some people have super shoes but others have ripped shoes that its fair for them to race and I agree with that but sometimes people don't realize the advantage they have
Interesting point @centered_cliff. Can you give an example of a situation where someone might not realise their advantage?
i think its not fare because then you could cheat and say it was all you but it was just the thing what you used to cheat say for a fact if you were swimming and you used a speed swimsute and took all the credit for it when it wasnt you who won the race then that would be unfair aswell because someone who used there skills who tryed really heard to win and you won with spending money to pay for somthing to help you win
I think this is unfair because not everyone has that money so therefore the Winter Games are not fair
i think that it is not fair because some country's are not as fortunate as other country's and it makes the completion's harder
I think it should not be allowed because more richer countries can afford it so the less fortunate people cant and that wont be very fair to then because they have better equipment to do the same thing but have more of a chance of winning so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because it gives a better chance of winning if you have the great equipment and i think it is kind of cheating although it is allowed .
@Openminded_queen what suggestions would you have for officials to make the competition more fair?
all the rich can buy all the stuff you need in sports tech but the other teams that may not have as much cant so therefore i think the winter games are not fair since it should all be equal and happy
@Breathtaking_gazelle, you metion that the Winter Games should "all be equal and happy". If you were running the Olympic Games, what would you put in place to ensure they are equal?
i would make sure every team has one sport tech each for free so no team has not got any tech to help them, also i think one sports tech per team is equal, so teams can ensure its all fair and safe in games.
i think richer teams have an advantage because they can buy stuff to help them win so therefore the winter games are not fair
firstly I think I agree because even though not many countries can afford the tech it will help stop injuries like in sports e.g. tennis, racing ,football , skiing , rugby , hocky , volley ball , badminton.so therefore the Winter Games are fair but at the same time not fair because some people might take advantage of that and start to use it un-fairly which makes the game boring and not safe.
secondly some people might disagree but my point is that it should only be used for safety since some people/teams cant afford the tech for the clothes and the equipment. lastly im neutral because it could help or destrory the purpose or the winter/summer games.
I disagree with this because some teams in the Olympics might not be as fortunate as other teams. I think if one team uses technology then everyone should and if they can't afford it then no on e should be able to use it.
I feel like more wealthy teams who come wealthier countries will have an advantage during the sport because a lot of teams will spend lot's of money on sports technology that can help them win matches, this will include: faster equipment, better training facilities and paid experts to help them improve their skills. Even though this equipment could only help win by milliseconds these tiny advantages can help a lot.
Over all i think sports technology is used a lot in our generation and I think this should be used only to help make the sport more fair not unfair and changing the sport.
Do think sports technology should be used all the time?
I agree with you - it is important that sports technology is applied to areas where all participants can benefit equally to allow for fair competition. Do you think this is difficult to achieve?
I think that it would not be fair because there are less fortunate so they may not be able to afford the equipment that the other countries have as they might have more opportunities then other people
I think the richer teams have a greater advantage because they have more money to get there teams equipment that they need, and I also think that if a rich team go against a poor team then the richer team will have a greater chance of winning because they have better equipment.
And I also think that this makes the Olympic winter games not completely fair because of these reasons
Do you think that they should ban excessive equipment in the winter Olympic winter games?
@sceptical_measurement can you give some examples of what you would call "excessive equipment"?
I think that teams or countries will have a big advantage if they have more money so they could buy lots of sport technology. Also I think that some fan’s and other people will think this is unfair for the other countries and that you can only use sport technology if everyone else has it too. So it can be fair sometimes.
I think richer teams can buy advantages even tho the rules are the same for everyone.Different sports have different rules for everyone to follow
I think that this is unfair because some people cant afford the newest technology. If some other teams can afford the best/newest technology then it wont be fair on the other teams who cant. If a richer team went against a cheaper team then the first team would win because they have the better technology.
On the other hand, if a richer team went against another rich team it would be fair because they can afford the same technology.If a cheaper team went against another cheap team then it will still be fair because they can still afford the same technology.
I still think that it is unfair because it mostly happens with a rich team and a cheaper team.
I think that all technology should work the same and be the same price.
I think richer people have a bigger advantage because they can buy proper equipment on the other hand people who have less money cant buy proper equipment that has more grip but i think people with less money have a tiny disadvantage because now some sports use sports technology
I think it is an advantage to have more money than another team because they can afford better equipment and resources. They might even manipulate and blackmail refs to give them a point or pay better players more money .
I think that makers of the event need to put a money limit on the event so that they can spend money equally no matter how big your country is. For example F1, Red Bull have all the money so then that leads to coming first and second every year but Williams a smaller driving team they always come nearer to the bottom of the table because they don't have much money.
This is a very good answer well done :)
I personally think that Winter Games should not be using tech because it could give others a bigger lead so they could win. But there is always another side to a debate so this is my other side.
I think it could be a useful thing though they can make more money if that is their goal. Also they could attract more people to do that sport which could be helpful for others so they can get fit!
But think if tech was in our every day in water bottles or even hair brushes. Our sporting future career it could be so different!
Back to the sport tech could be completely different it hopes on us!
Have a good day!
I think they can buy advantage in games because if they did not what would be the point of all games like football,basket ball, skiing and racing in cars.
No because some people don't have the money therefore the olympics and the parelypics so they are not fair!
I think richer teams may be able to get better equipment and have a higher chance of winning so the winter games may not be fair for everyone even though there are rules to stop it but still the richer the team the better the gear and the better the gear the more unfair it is. so yes I think that the richer the team the higher their chances of the team are.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage because some teams in football have a lot of money and some teams don't have as much money. In real life football this affects the matches because the richer teams have better players and the not so rich teams don't win more matches than the richer teams. Footballers still train super hard to win games and if you were to 1v1 a pro footballer you probably wouldn't win.
I think they can but it wouldn't be fair as the teams that are relying on what they have would have a disadvantage as the richer team can buy AI shoes, robotic legs, visual glasses which allow you to see when a person is about to make move ect.
It can also be advantage as the teams that buy anything have a better chance of winning while the teams that don't but AI generated stuff have a 25% chance of winning the game.
As a conclusion the game won't be fair as richer teams buy advantages will have a 75% of winning while teams that don't buy advantages have a 25% chance of winning.
I think if the richer teams buy and advantage then it won't be fair since they would win everything which theres no point of the game. No,i dont think it matters about the money because not everyone has money to buy advanteges. I think pratice is more important than paying to win .
I think that richer teams have an advantage because more money can get the best sports technology.This includes, better training facilities,faster equipment and more experts to help them.
I think that richer teams can buy an advantage the olympics and paralympics strive for fairness,but tech advantages can create imbalances.some argue it's a level playing field for those who can access technology, while others says it amplifies the gap. So it creates uneven playing fields, highlights inequalities, affects fairness and even increases competitive gaps.
"Would limiting tech make the competition fairer for all?"
i think that richer teams can buy advantage because say if you are signed up to join a race at school,and you got three weeks till the race and you are training every day but you don't have that much money to buy some tech.your opponent has the money to buy things.he buys the latest running shoes but you only have these cheep worn out shoes.
you don't have a watch to keep track of your heart rate but your opponent has.you only have a tiny garden to train in.
it has now been three weeks and you are on the track,you look at your opponent and they have the best gear.there gear has extremely good grip and there cloths are made for running but you are wearing a tracksuit , the race starts and you loose because your opponent has good gear.
this story explains why there is an advantage and disadvantages in money.a country could have a lot of money so they can buy good tech and good training but another county might have a little bit of money and only have a little bit of training and have not as good tech as the other team. but they can legally do this because it doesn't say that they can't do this in the rules.
I think The Olympics and the Paralympics are not fair to countries that don’t have the opportunity to purchase certain equipment or training facilities. Wealthy countries can afford equipment like embedded sensors and AI-driven analytics that countries that are not that rich cannot afford. Advantageous equipment like embedded sensors in soccer, used in balls and wearable devices, provide real-time, high-precision data to track player performance, ball movement, and health metrics. AI-driven sensors in soccer—integrated into vests, clothing, or the ball—collect, track, and analyze thousands of data points per second to optimize performance, prevent injuries, and enhance tactics. The winner can be based on a really small amount of time that can be shorter than a blink of an eye! For example, Norway coaches were found guilty of cheating by tampering with athlete suits at the March 202 Nordic World Ski Championships in Trondheim. I don’t think less wealthy countries can compete with this kind of technology.
I think the richer teams can buy advantages, which leads to the Winter Games not being fair mostly because the other countries might not have the money to buy technology and gadgets. The richer teams can buy the best gadgets, and you would also be able to sign the best players, also investing in advanced analytics. The lower paid teams wont have the ability to compete against the top players in the world, but money cant buy wins as long as another team is better even with the lowest quality tech and gadgets. As long as the smaller team works hard, teamwork, and prepares they will have an even better chance at winning.
Hi I am illuminated fact I am very happy to interact with you guys
Hello! Do you have any thoughts on the fair use of sports technology?
As a Sportsman, I strongly agree that the winter games lose fairness, when the access to expensive, advanced sports equipment is unequal. As athletes commit years of disciplined training, dedicated hardwork, and mental endurance, dreaming that their performance on the day of competition would reflect their hard work, ability, skills and their effort.
I think athletes benefits from high-tech equipment or high-tech performance tools, making the competition feel uneven before even the game starts. These advantages make us feel small, but in high levels like the winter games they help in bigger ways, like conserving energy, reduce errors, these could be factors that can directly affect the outcome. For athletes from poor countries without these resources, matching the same level often needs greater strain & risks, that too in sport small injuries can lock their sports career.
In paralympics we can see the difference clearly, as in prosthetics and in customized equipments which can affect speed, and control.
I strongly feel that technology always has a game changing factor and if athletes starts to rely on technology the result would comes on favour of richer nation
As an athlete, I feel that fairness truly lies in the success of true dedication, hardwork and skills. When technology gets upperhand in sports then success can't be earned, it could only be bought
I think richer teams can buy an advantage, so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because richer teams can buy equipment to help with their body temperatures in the cold, and if the other team doesn't have much money for equipment like that it can affect them during the competition. For example, sports like soccer richer teams can buy equipment to help them through the cold helping them keep warm, and if the other team doesn't have much money it can affect them during a competition with their low quality of equipment during the winter.
No, Olympic and Paralympic will not be fair if some athlete teams can afford better Technology then others, And I know this because there would be a huge inequality between the players who's teams can't afford it and the teams who can't. Another reason would be that if a team has technology for the Olympics and Paralympics then one that doesn't there would be a huge disadvantage because the team that has the technology doesn't have to practice as hard as the ones that don't have it.
Hi I am illuminated fact
The richer team has advanced equipment that has more features but the poor team have very simple or normal equipment with no features.
So probably the richest team will be winning and there are few games that are played with costly equipments. Example : golf , shooting etc .... In these games poor team cannot participate, it will be advantage for the richest team.
And we can say that money cannot win the medal but there are few teams which will cheat , when the judges found out also few will be giving money and escape from that problem and win the medal
I think it depends on the type of sport technology, if this technology helps with cheating and winning every time, so this called unfair and in some circumstances it will cause the club to give bills to the universal place of this sport like fifa in football ,but if this technology doesn't have an effect on this sport and its rules so we can cal it as a fair played technology which can can help the club and players.
But do you think that sport technology should be banned under all circumstances?
I think the teams can buy technologies to help them train and practise but I don't think its fair to use when competing because I think that would be cheating. :)
I like that you have considered a situation where technologies might be fair (in training) and when they might not (in competition). Can you think of an example of a sport which might use technology in training but not in competition?
Hi its allowing_physics just replying Steff some of the sports i think they could use in training are sports like tennis for a ball launcher and a few other sports like that. :)
A ball launcher is a great example! Well done
I think it does but i depends on the technology you buy with the money and how it affects the sport so I think it depends on the sport
willing starfish
I like that you have considered how technology might have different effects on different sports, willing_starfish. Can you give an example of a sport which would be fairly affected by technology and on where you think technology would make it unfair?
I dont think they can because it will be unfair for more teams and they would be disquallafied.
I disagree with you because they could just bribe to win the metal. also even if the teams are unfair they wouldn't get disqualified just because they are richer than other teams.
I don't think it is fair because the richer teams can buy better technology and poorer teams have limited access to technology so the richer teams have a more present of winning so I think the teams should have the same amount of money to spend
Rich teams have have a more advantage than poor teams because they have more technology to use the winter games so now you should use less technologies so it’s a equivalent games so now the fans would more enjoy it because if they didn’t if they had lots of technology less fans come to their games
Hi free_construction, do you think that teams who can afford to have better technology should stop using their technology to make it fair, or do you think richer teams should pay for poorer teams to have the technology they have?
I think yes because the sports should be fair so everyone should have a chance to win
I think richer teams are the better because like in football when you have a team really good the better of your team so ye that’s what I’m saying I hope you agree with me
Yes and no because more money can buy better equipment but it might not be better and just worse
No because you shouldn’t be cheating with technology so DONT!
I thick it is sometimes not fair because in football when it’ var if they know the players they let them of and when they look at var helps them.
I think no so therefore the winter games are not fair because the other team will obviously win
🏆🥇🎖️
Some countries or sports groups can indeed provide their athelete with more resources, giving them an edge in competition.this raises questions about whether the games are truly fair.
The paralympics,in particular, face challenges in ensuring equal access to assistive tech ,which can greatly impact an athlete performance. Research shows that high-income countries tend to participate more and win more medals, so highlighting the influence of economic factors
What do you think should there be Stricker regulations on sports technology funding,or is it okay for countries to invest in their atheletes.
I agree with you
Money really changes the game. Teams with more cash can get better tech, fancy training stuff, and experienced coaches, so they’re already ahead before it even starts.
And I liked what you said about mindset. If you train somewhere nice with all the right stuff, it makes you feel more confident and ready. Of course, skill and effort still matter, but it’s way harder for teams that don’t have that kind of support.
Honestly, your point shows how money can make sports kinda unfair sometimes.
It's a really interesting question! I think richer team can definitely use their resources to get better equipment and training, which can give them an edge. But, talent and hard work are still super important, and you can't buy those. Maybe the best way to keep things fair is to have rules that limit how much teams can spend on certain technologies, or to make sure everyone has access to good coaching and facilities, no matter how much money they have.
Ultimately, sports depend on the player's will and talent, and that can not be bought. To achieve fairness, there must be standardized equipment so that we win based on skill, not on the size of the financial portfolio.
Good comment, thanks for sharing your ideas around how to keep a level of fairness too.
I think the richer teams can buy an advantage. But the way that it influences the winter games making it fair and unfair depends on the situation .On one hand, wealthier teams can afford better sports technology, such as smart watches and body-tracking devices.IF these are used only during training, they help athletes understand their mistakes, reduce injuries, and improve performance through hard work. In this case, the competition can still be fair because the athlete is competing using their own skill and effort.
On the other hand, the Winter games could become unfair if advanced technology is used during the actual events. For example, extremely high-tech running shoes that give extra speed could give richer teams an advantage that others cannot afford. This shifts the focus from talent to technology.
As a student, I feel sports should test an athlete’s ability, not their equipment. Overall, I believe technology should support athletes in training, but strict rules are necessary during the Games so that success depends on ability, dedication, and fairness rather than money.
Good arguments in your comment. thanks for sharing.
I think when a team can afford technology and others can't, the team with the technology has more advantages. Fans and casual viewers will consider the winter games as being unfair because there is no level playing ground. Hence it will lose fanbase and loyalty. I suggest organizers should find a common ground, where no team feels cheated or disadvantaged, and still enjoy loyalty. Money should not be the name of the game.
THANK YOU!!!!
Good comment and thanks for sharing the perspective of viewers/fans.
I think that if one person gets it, then everybody should get it because some countries(like Afghanistan ang Argentina) don't get enough income, while others (Luxembourg and US) are rich.
From my perspective,The olympics and paralympics chiefly focuses to be fair competition where it tests the athletes skills, hard work, training and determination .But some wealthy countries can afford advanced sports technology, equipments,better medical support, scientific training techniques ,which provide more benefit for athletes.In this case it can be questioned when some countries afford better technology than others.
On other hand,the olympics and paralympics strictly set boundaries and trying to reduce unfair advantages by using technology and equipments .They restrict or limit technologies that give more merit and ensure that athletes compete with same rules and regulations .
To conclude ,the rules and regulations help keep the competitions as fair as possible but some technology and equipments can effect fairness to some extend . Ultimately ,an athletes hard work,practice, training, dedication,talents plays the important role in winning.
I think that richer teams can buy themselfs an advantage so there should be a spending limit/budget but also the poorer teams are not able to get those advantages/better tech so they wouldn't be able to improve their sports as much as the richer teams.They should also like give the poorer teams a tiny bit of money so they can improve a little bit more.I also think that it is kind off fair because the richer teams like earn it so I am kind of in the middle so I think that they should just put a spending limit on it per team player.
I think theoretically it's fair but in reality, it's a bit messy. In Olympics and Paralympics, tech matters a lot. But it's not fully fair as richer countries have access to advanced technology and they can also fund training in perfect facilities. So the thing is like competitive advantage is determined by financial capability. Teams that cannot afford advanced sports technology are not less talented, but they compete with fewer tools. They often rely more on natural ability, and hard training rather than tech assisted equipments. This means that the winter games remain fair in terms of rules as everyone follows the same regulations. But, they are not equal in opportunity. Athletes from underfunded teams must overcome additional barriers that richer teams do not face.
But It can be fairer if there are strict regulations, classification systems to reduce advantages in using tech and banning tech if used unfairly.
For example bobsleigh and skiing in the Winter Olympics show how funding and technology can affect fairness in sport. Wealthier countries can invest in lighter, more aerodynamic bobsleigh sleds and advanced ski equipment, along with high-tech training. As a result, success depends not only on athlete's strength, skill, and training, but also on access to superior technology. Although strict regulations exist to limit equipment advantages, unequal funding still influences performance. Therefore, these events are fair by rules, but not entirely equal in practical life.
Good comment with relevant examples.
I think it's completely fair, there is only one team in a country right, there is no country without money, every country will have money separated for sports, a team will definitely have money for 10 to 15 peoples .
interesting perspective. There may be quite a few poorer countries which may choose to spend more money on infrastructure development rather than sports, would you think every country will have same level of funding for the sports they participate in?
I don't think that every country will have the same level of funding,what I meant to say is that the country will have money for the team not the sports tech what I mean is that the country does not have money to create or invent a new tech but they would have money to buy a invented tech
CAN RICHER TEAMS BUY AN ADVANTAGE
BAD THINGS:
Every year the same teams win
Some teams have an advantage
Richer teams have better equipment and that makes the better players really good and that makes them insanely hard to beat
GOOD THINGS:
You might be on the team that always wins
It can help the younger players thrive
If players are injured they can get the right support
Personally I think richer teams can buy an advantage and I think their should be a spending limit
Well structured comment, clear thinking.
Yes, as teams don’t need money as much as they think, olympics and Paralympic’s are based on skill and talent and how athletes can accomplish their dreams and what they’ve been destined to do throughout their life.
Secondly, tech doesn’t make sport shine in the spotlight most of the time as teams have been made and created to improve and fulfil athletes dreams and accomplishments while having fun with the sport they love. This can help with not just scores and points, but with well being and emotional health which can be the core of all sports people show compassion for a sport and the athletes, not tech.
Also, people don’t watch sport for tech to overcome the legacy and history of sports which is the pinocle of nations across the world who adore sports and want to have fun with friends and family watching a sport they love and come together as a nation worldwide with many different opinions and debates on tens of thousands of questions the sporting world need answering. Surprisingly, over 93 countries participate in Olympic and Paralympic sports which prioritises skill and abilities of athletes across all of said nations.
To finish things off, I want to appreciate all the athletes who participate in the games and try and make fans happy and making the sports more enjoyable for everyone, making more improvements big or small to create more happiness and appreciation to all athletes that deserve it for there terrific performances in Olympic sports and other worldwide events so everyone can improve and reach the level they can climb to quicker than they think they can.
I feel blessed to participating in Topical talk festival in 2026 for the first time in my life. First of all, I would like to say that I live in a country that in natural diversity. Of course that could be my beloved motherland Bangladesh. I'm a permanent resident of Chittagong, Bangladesh. Chittagong is considered a commercial capital in Bangladesh. However, I'm involved in various activities besides my study. For example: debates, spelling bee , speaking engagement etc. By doing other activities alongside my studies ,I feel that my knowledge is not limited to certain books and I'm able to think about the diversity that exists in the world.
Thank you everyone. I hope you're also appreciated me .
I think that it is very unfair. The whole idea of The Olympics is to unify and come together in a friendly competition to showcase everyone's talents from all around the world. Talent, dedication and equality all should come together to create a brilliant show of pride for our countries, and how amazing true perseverance and sporting can be. However, when some countries can afford better and modern training equipment and spaces, it ruins the whole idea of coming together. Instead of focusing on pure talent, strategy and dedication, what do we see? We see a small world with many people focusing on winning, rather than really focusing on the amazing athletes themselves.
However, it is almost possible to regulate the training facilities and money spent on the Winter Games and Olympics. Despite there being some rules prohibiting these unfair advantages, we still find many reading between the lines and finding ways to make their athletes have better spaces and equipment, despite realising that wealth is an unfair advantage.
Therefore, I feel that we can change how this is run. If the Olympics presented clear equipment that athletes must use, and even gave a certain limit on money used, it might make it fairer. As well as this, regular checks on training facilities for the athletes could make a considerable difference.
Despite this idea, it is terribly hard to present a solution that leaves no space for people to look into and cheat. At this point, countries need to be reminded of the true purpose of the Winter Games: perseverance, talent and that spirit of togetherness!
I think richer teams can buy an advantage, it depends on the sport. For example in
figure skating, because a richer team can have professional skates, but the other
athletes maybe they can only afford some bad skates. If they are wearing them for more than one hour they can cause blisters.
Hi everyone! I think that teams that have more money to spend have somewhat of a advantage, therefore the Winter Games are not fair because the teams that don't have as much money are disadvantaged since they can only afford lower grade equipment. On the other hand, the ones with money can afford higher performance gear and training so they automatically get a bigger advantage in the games . For example in figure skating the quality of the skates matter so the athlete is able to land better or get better momentum while doing tricks.
In my opinion at the Winter Olympics, athletes who have more funding have more of an advantage than those at the Summer Olympics. For example, at skating you can have better skates that could help you in the competition to do your skills. But in swimming you don't need to be wealthy or have better equipment because you'll do the same thing even if you have a 2000 RON swimsuit or a 100 RON swimsuit. In conclusion I think that it depends on the sport that you are practising. Some sports require better equipment and some don't.
Hello! In my opinion, richer teams can buy an advantage because of the fancy equipment that is easily obtainable for them. For example, having more flexible skiis during the freestyle skiing could give an unfair advantage for those from richer countries even though they aren't always better than talented people from the financially unstable national teams.
In other Winter Olympic sports, like figure skating, wealthier teams can't really buy an advantage because the best figure skaters are very gentle, a thing that money can't buy. For example, Mone Chiba, the world's best at the moment, is from a country that doesn't pay much for their athletes. For Russia, figure skating is a national sport and they spend the most money on their athletes and still not one being in the top five in the world right now.
In conclusion, money can't always buy titles, but better equipment can make you feel better while competing.
I think if some teams can afford better sports technology for their athletes, the Olympics and Paralympics would not be fair because some countries can spend their money on things that their team will eventually need to use. On the other hand, teams who do not have as much money as their opposing team are not completely on the level as the other teams.
From my research, Richer teams can buy an advantage because their country can spend money on better equipment, trainers, training facilities and faster equipment. I've noticed that technology is being used more and more everyday while being a former athlete myself! In sports that I play, it is sometimes not fair to our team because other teams have used their expensive equipment to win against us.
From my experience, I can say I think Richer teams can buy an advantage and the Olympics and Paralympics are not fair!
not necessarily because if your better at something and a greedy person would always choose money over greatness
I think richer teams can buy advantage, so therefore the winter games are not completely fair as some countries can afford state of the arch equipment that can improve skill and provide better training. As technology evolves it helps with better recovery and increase strength technology can help with predicting injuries in advance before the risk can cause severe damages. As an article states "technology can teach technique to improve form and alignment/balance."
I think since the strict and codes are preventing anything like cheating or unfair play, therefore in my opinion the Winter Games are fair to me. I think this because due to some rules of strict equipment specifications, they will check and approve all equipment. And although some may think that judges and whatnot can get bribed or a president may do anything to help their team win. But it is least likely that specific team will win due to their non-political conduct. Overall to wrap this up, the Winter Games code can prevent any misconduct most likely.
I strongly consider that the Winter Games are not equal, since richer teams can purchase new technology that might affect how the participants' performance develops; given the fact that your results could be affected by the equipment you implement and its quality. Although, to be honest, there are some other aspects that make me change my mind.
Regarding the worldwide definition of equality, the appliance of different technology in the same sporting discipline wouldn't be equal , considering that not every single individual can make use of the exactly same stuff. Making people play with advantage. Advantage that influences the outcoming thanks to the technology, not their actual skills. In that case, we would be evaluating a person's capacity of acting with technology, not their ¨fair¨ game or results
On the other hand, let me expose something. Let's focus on soccer/football. The team that possesses the most money, is the one that can afford to hire the best players, bearing in mind that those are the most expensive. Now that I have brought to light this controversial topic, does it mean that the most powerful teams are playing unfairly just because they have more money?
Furthermore, in other sports, professional players compete in the same category, doesn't matter their abilities or skills. And it would be also inequitable, since they are possibly playing against people with higher or lower sport talent.
Thanks!
I think it is unfair because if athletes do not have access to the same funding or latest technology then one athlete will always be at an advantage to the other.
Do you think some people might have a natural talent, or do you think it's purely down to access to the latest technology/equipment?
I think it is unfair for other teams/countries to have technology because if somebody had for example better running shoes they might be able to run faster without a single blister. Adding on to that if somebody had not much money and bad equipment they should get a head start for example if somebody had terrible shoes and terrible socks they might fall over and hurt themselves right at the beginning so they should get a head start so they can get a bit further.
Thank you for reading!!!!
Hello admirable_octopus,I completely agree with your opinion because terrible equipment would make them possibly not reach the competitors full potential. Better equipment would mean they have the same equal practices and training and no one would have advantages and or disadvantages. With equal training the competition would be fair and everyone could have a chance to win fairly.
Hi I am outgoing alligator and I personally believe that yes the Winter Games is quite unfair. Because certain equipment can be expensive like facilities,faster technology and things like that so more rich teams can buy them but less rich teams can't so I think it is unfair.
To resplendent blueberry yes I think they should limit technology so than it would be fair or even just lower the prices so it is not just a few teams that can buy it because it isn't completely cheating but at the same time it kind of is if you get what I mean.
I think richer teams can buy advantage. Therefore the winter games are not fair because teams with more money can not afford to buy advanced sport technology, it is like one person in a supercar and the other person in a bicycle. They also have better coaches who can train them to defeat their opponents using the secret tricks . Mean while the opposing team may not have been able to buy to same sport technology, and may have to work harder with the old equipment. What about if the technology malfunction, the player will be seriously affected. so if the playing field is in level one, i believe the sprit of the sport might lost.
I think that richer teams can buy advantage, but not talent. Talent is a thing that is sometimes more important for a team. Many teams around the world have a lot of talented athletes, and they can actually perform better, but I also think that talent isn't coming alone. I heard that talent makes up only 5% of athletes and the other 95% comes with hard work, but for that hard work you should have more money. When teams have more money, they can buy the newest technology to help their athletes achieve better results. But certainly, I would never want to see those who didn't even try at, but with using technology they had achieved better results than those who worked hard to get the same results, because that really wouldn't be fair.
I think richer teams can by an advantage, because the teams can buy an array of items to help their team to victory. This can lead their team to victory. This can include: better training facilities, better training equipment and better coaches to help them. So yes, I think the Winter games will be very unfair.
I believe that teams that have more money can and will buy better things to give their athletes advantages, for example something not in the olympics but still a sport is Formula 1, where the richer teams can buy better engines and pieces for their car to make them faster. Look at Red Bull and Williams for example, Red Bull have won many constructors championships which has made it so they have a lot more money to spend on their car, where as Williams haven’t won any in the 21st century as their only ones back in the 20th century between 1980 and 1997 which means that they don’t have as much money to spend on their car, so they’re such in the midfield.
Another sport is skiing or snowboarding where the richer teams can make more aerodynamic suits or helmets and so on, but the poorer teems can’t make those which makes some sports unfair for different teams.
In conclusion, many things in the Winter Olympics can give the richer teams more advantage than the poorer teams, which makes the winter games unfair In some ways.
I believe that this is definitely fair because it all depends on the players skills if they are in need of a bit more help with their techniques and skills then they do not get granted with exceptional sport equipment and might not win much games but if they invite more players in with good skills then that team will increase in popularity and become quite a sterling team with many success. But those other teams that had excellent skills from the start will get granted with trophies and money until some retire and new, not so amazing players join and the team turns into a flop.... PS. Just because you start bad doesn't mean you'll end bad.
I don't think it is fair that rich teams can buy an advantage for putting unit chips into footballs to either make them win or see who is going to win or give them a greater kick for them to win
Honestly, it doesn't feel right that something trees can buy their athletes the coolest worst gear for the winter games. Sports are supposed to be about how hard you work and what you can do, not about who's got the most cash. When rich countries show up with better stuff, it gives their athletes a big leg up, and that's just not fair.
I get it, though- it is not really the athletes' fault. If I was competing, of course I'd want the best equipment too. Still, I feel bad for the athletes from places that don't have as much money. They work just as hard, maybe even harder, but don't get the same chances.
Therefore the Winter Games should try to make things more even. That way everyone has a real shot and it is not just the rich countries winning all the time. That would actually make the games more fun to watch too.
I think this is a serious issue, so therefore the Winter Games are not truly fair because unequal access to sports technology can decide results before the competition even begins. I remember watching a Winter Olympics race and feeling uncomfortable rather than inspired, because it was obvious that some athletes had cutting edge equipment while others were using much older gear. It felt less like a test of human ability and more like a contest between budgets.
However, others might argue that this has always been the reality of elite sport, and that wealthier nations investing more in technology should not be punished for it. They might also say that even the best equipment is useless without talent, discipline, and years of hard training.
Overall, if the Olympics and Paralympics are meant to represent fairness and unity, then allowing technology gaps to influence outcomes threatens the very meaning of the Games and risks turning them into a showcase of money rather than merit.
I think richer teams have a clear advantage against others. For this reason, I personally believe that in competitions using this kind of revolutionary technology should be vanished, specially when it doesn't help the athlete but increase their capacity in a massive way .
Firstly, it wouldn't be a new action, since we've seen it in 2010 when the FINA prohibited the "super suits" and the golf carts that were banned in professional golf. Besides, the institutions ban these technologies, for example, because it goes against the sport's spirit.
Secondly, there's no point on competing when everyone doesn't get the same opportunities and many teams will have a terrible disadvantage. In addition, practicing or watching the sport wouldn't be that interesting because it isn't talent or hard work what wins but money.
In conclusion, if we want sports to keep their essence we should protect fairness and equal opportunities. Furthermore, I believe that technology should be only used if everyone can benefit from it or it makes no sense to compete.
What do you think about the opportunity gap that technology can create in sports?
Yeah the Paralympic and Olympic are fair today due to the strict conditions but as the tech grow bigger and bigger like the long jump games if a country which is were rich
and it could actually afford millions and millions of dollars for the sports they would win easyly
I believe the teams that can afford technology to help their own athletes to improve faster is fair. It can help the person find things that they didn't know were their weakness. Some athletes would think their sprinting is good and can't be improved until they test is using technology to find the weakness or downside of their ability. Using it as a training equipment is completely fine as long they don't use it during their games.
However, some would say that is would be unfair for the Paralympics due to them having a disability which makes it much harder for the person. however if the Olympics allow them to use slight enhancers it would be more fair. Like adding a prosthetic leg that looks and works like a real human leg. You may think don't they already have those? Your not wrong but I mean a 1 to 1 real leg that works like a real leg. It can grow muscle and tire a muscle like how a real leg works.
To conclude this I believe using technology for sports would make games more interesting to watch. Seeing speeds like Kylian Mbappe, Cristiano Ronaldo's shooting, Messi's dribbling and Usan bolts 100 meter dash sprints go out the water.
Hello everyone...!!! So i am giving my opinion here-
I think the spirit of winter sports is dying, so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because it’s becoming a 'Science Fair' for rich countries.true sport is about human effort, not bank accounts, so therefore the Winter Games are not even fair because rich teams are using 'technological doping' to buy their way to the podium. When some countries can afford super-tech gear and others can't, it’s no longer a fair race—it’s just a contest of who has the best machines. If money decides the winner, is the gold medal for the athlete or for the technology they bought???
I don't agree. Because it's not about fair or unfair. Equipment and technology is a part of sports competition. For those poor teams or countries unfortunate they may not forward equipments, but that doesn't mean they will fail competitions constantly, there still many visible ways to catchup through effort.
I think that the Winter Games are unfair however I also believe that training is training, and having advantages doesn't have to mean just having more money and better training. It's not the equipment that decides the outcome of a competition, ultimately its the athletes. In the actual competitions, there are regulations that prevent any actual significant advantages using technology. The reason I think the Winter Games are unfair is that better coaching, facilities, and resources is of course going to impact competitions and results. If you put two very similarly matched athletes in two different training camps, one where it isn't that well funded and isn't anything special and the other in one where the equipment is high tech, the coaches are elite, and you have access to more training opportunities, then who do you think will win in a competition afterwards? The winner will very likely be the one who trained in better facilities. However, the mental condition of an athlete is also an important factor in victory. If one team has very disciplined and ambitious players while the other team's roster is lazy and mentally weak, and they have the same training, you could argue that the more disciplined team has an advantage despite having the same facilities. In sports, there is no way to have a completely fair competition. Overall, I think that the Winter Games are unfair and richer teams can buy an advantage, but ultimately it depends on the athletes.
Yes, I agree because the richer teams have the funding to get equipment that will help them win the games. On the other hand, poorer teams might have lesser chances at winning because they don't have the technological aids.
For example, tennis is a sport that can be played individually or in teams, a richer team or individual can will be able to afford better shoes, caps, and quality rackets that gives a better swing. On the other hand, the team that is not able to afford these equipment may struggle thereby giving the richer team a higher chance at winning the game.
I believe that richer teams can buy an advantage. While talent definitely plays a large factor, an athlete can only be as good as the equipment you provide them with. Additionally, in the vast majority of sports, mere fractions of seconds separate 1st and 2nd place- so any equipment the sports teams can afford will likely boost them to success.
I'm not saying that equipment makes ability, though. Athletes still have to work for years for medals, and equipment can only boost them along the way. If you give a monkey a magic tennis racket, that doesn't mean that they'll win against a master tennis player.
In my opinion, the richer teams can buy advantage and that's not fair beacuse they can buy advanced technology, so they can win the game. For example, acording to the BBC before the Paris Olympic Games officialy began, the Canadian women's football team was involved in a scandal involving a drone flown over an opponent's practice.
I think that the matches have to be more fair, so every one should have a chance for winning.
Yes teams can buy advantages but I think it is unfair because if a poor team plays a rich team it would the rich team would likely win because if I have the worlds best football boots and I go faster and the other team has normal boots I would have a 75% of winning. I think people need consent before the match so it is equal because I wouldn’t want someone else doing that to me.
I think that richer teams can buy an advantage, but I also think that maybe poorer teams can also buy an advantage. By putting in perspective some ways of "buying technology or advantages" we can see that not all the technology is that expensive. As it may only be a couple of thousand of dollars, which if you are competing at a higher or Olympic level and have some decent sponsors, it won't be that expensive, for example aerodynamic bike helmets can cost as little as $1000 dollars. But if we're talking at a more advanced level like some futuristic technology worth millions of dollars I think that yes, richer teams can buy advantages and technology. So in conclusion, I think it depends.
I think so because it would make it more fair and interesting
Can you tell us why you think this?
Hi! I am from Romania and I think that some teams can afford more technology for the training and other stuff but I don't think that makes it unfair, for example in water polo every player trains in three disciplines, swimming speed,shoot power and stamina and you don't need very advance technology so in water polo olympics I don't think think technology matters a lot, other people might have different opinions but I have my opinion because I was at the olympics in Paris and I asked a lot of players how do they train And they said that they don't use that much technology for they're training, it's more important to have passion for the sport.
I think it is unfair as richer teams can improve their training and their work leading up to the events as well as having better equipment to use during the actual events. This means that people are no longer awarded on merit and accomplishment but instead, they are rewarded for their access to better training provisions. It also means that young people just starting out in sport can struggle to keep up with their peers on an individual basis as they do not have the money to be able to access the best training provisions. I think this undermines the values of sport in general and means that lots of people will never be acknowledged for their genuine talents or their own hard work which is unfair.
I think the richer people have an advantage to get better equipment in sports but they should not use the equipment because it is unfair cause some of us are poor.
i think richer teams can buy advanteges therefore it is not fair for poor teams around the world and it should be fair for all countries and it is not completly fair so say in football there is var it is ruining games because it is wasting time and the teams and fans might get angry and start fights about the decision and the teams referree may get injured.the training facilites are not fair for the poorer teams because teams like real madrid are very rich so they can get better training things moving onto the tech I do not think tech is fair in all active sports but the most in running because if you wear banned shoes you could get banned . do you think tech should be limited?
i think that richer teams can buy an advantage like better shoes and health watches. on the other hand its about the training you do and if you are a good sport. In conclusion i think richer do have a bigger advantage .
So I think that in football there should not be any tech because it is fun just the way it is there shall and never will be a little bit of tech. I do hope you agree.
BBBBYYYEE
I think it is possible for richer teams to buy advantage and this makes the winter games unfair for the team which can't afford any advance athlete equipments or other things okay let's take an example you have got an project from the school to build a simple"TAJ MAHAL"replica and you try hard to build it but your friends and your classmates by readymade Taj Mahal replica from handicraft emporiums and in school your teacher is giving only B grade for your Taj Mahal replica and a grade for the Taj Mahal replica bought from handicraft emporiums what would will be your feeling and the same feeling would be with the athlete who couldn't afford an advance sports equipments this is the reason I strongly disagree for being able to use advance sports equipments
I think that the integration of technology into sports is unfair because when some competitors gain access to cutting-edge performance tech while others are left without, the playing field tilts, creating an uneven contest. Frankly it's not fair.
Conversely, if all participants have access to the same technological advantages, a sense of scenario, everyone has an equal chance to leverage the benefits of these advancements .
But,be that as it may, employing technology to boost athletic performance has its downsides.Athletes could become overly reliant on gadgets, potentially stunting their skill development.Moreover, the widespread availability of technology could blur the lines, allowing anyone to potentially enter the arena, regardless of inherent talents. This too , poses questions of fairness.
I reckon it depends ; if the technology that is given to the athlete enhances their performance rate , like using a sticky adhesive on a gymnast's hand to add a firmer grip on the bar, then yes this is considered unfair because the Olympics and Paralympics rely on skill and talent, and by using embellishing technology you are simply defeating the purpose of the competition.
If the technology is used for the players safety like reporting if the player is injured during a football match , it doesn't affect the competition and actually makes the results of the competition more reliable, as if you don't know that the opposing athlete is hurt and compare it to a thriving athlete then it isn't a fair comparison.
Overall it depends on the affect of the technology as it can sometimes improve the skill of the athlete making it unfair and it can also be used to detect if the player is wounded which can ensure the quality of the competition's results.
No, I think the richer teams can buy an advantage. So therefore, the winter games are fair, because it depends on how much money was given for new sports technology for the athletes. For example, if a team doesn't have enough money for new sports technology, there will be a low posibility chance of winning the race or sport event but if a team has enough money to get new sports technology, they would have a higher possibility of winning. However, other teams without access to sports might feel cheated. But as earlier started, with or without sports technology, talents still amtter.
I think depending on the sport it can give a very big advantage and can affect the opposition and also it can affect how everyone plays but if everyone had the same technology then it wouldn't make as big of a difference.
Also when I think when I think of sports I think people that are talented and they have been training for this most of there life and really trying but sometimes technology affects my opinion.
Although its different when it is for a disability.
Richer teams can buy advantage. the winter games are only advantage to the richer teams since they can afford from practice to real game activity. the richer teams get very qualified players and thus that becomes disadvantage to any other poor teams.
I think that richer team can get advantage though the following ways;
1)they get opportunity to buy better equipment.
2)they better chances of winning due to better facilities.
3)richer team are well able to bribe officials into giving them point.
I think richer teams can buy advantage, so therefore the winter games are not fair because, the richer team will be able to access high tech equipment which can be used for training. Some richer teams can used that advantage to bribe some officials which can allow them to win, while less richer teams won't be able to get the right equipment which can be used for training facilities or for treatment. I advice that the winter games should provide accessible materials or equipment which all teams can access.
THANK YOU.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage, so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because the richer teams can get more advanced equipment and enhanced training for their athletes but those teams who are not rich enough only have depend on their athletes physical efforts. But the richer teams cannot win if their athletes only depend on their sports technology because if they cannot use it, it's just a waste. So the Winter Games are not completely unfair, although not equal, because those athletes who are in teams that are not rich enough and want to achieve their goal train for many years, stay physically strong and perform under pressure due to determination to win.
Hello my name is interesting cookie.
The question is can richer team buy advantage. For me honestly I think the answer should be YES or NO because richer teams will have more advantage than the poor team because richer team or rich team I may say have the money, the capital to boost there player performance buy providing the necessary equipment such as canvas or boots, advanced tech watch and some other things. Also richer team with the capital can at the same time use it to elevate It competition with other teams. also rich team can afford to pay the players well so they can perform better. And also with there capital it will help in the advancement of there stadium and also the facilities. But as for the medium ranged team I won't say that they will note be able to afford because there still rich but not as the richer teams because they won't be able to afford as much advanced technological equipment as the need or want to.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage,so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because the richer teams can buy equipment to boost their ability and enhance their chance of getting a higher place. If richer teams boost their ability,other teams can feel like they aren't as good as the other team, and it might decrease the chance of that team to use their best ability and therefore they will not get a high score.
I think richer teams can buy their way to winning, so therefore the winter games are not fair because when gear that helps you or gives you chances at winning but it costs money. These new equipments allow these players to do things that the enemy team cant do. so this is why I think when a richer team uses their richness I think this is not fair.
I do not think this is completely fair, so therefore the Winter Games are not completely fair because some teams can afford much better technology than others. If an athlete has better technology, such as skis or a wheelchair, they will be able to do better even if they are not as skilled as the next person. This is an advantage for the richer teams before the Games even begin. However, the Games are also fair in some ways because everyone has to follow the same rules and works very hard. Money and technology can make a difference, which can be unfair.
I agree because the richer teams with the latest sports technology so that it would help them improve tiny details.
For example if it is horse riding a team can buy a healthy horse and can have a bigger advantage.
In my opinion, the Olympics and Paralympics (The Winter Games) are not fair because richer teams can buy more advanced and better quality equipment. Unlike the teams with more money, the teams that are on a tighter and/or strict budget can only buy simple, outdated things. Imagine you're playing a game and the opposing team has a new and improved knee brace to support their knees, yet you have a bad knee and a worn-out knee brace. The difference in technology can result in your knee giving out, and the other team could possibly be full of energy. This is why I believe that the Olympic Games could be unfair because richer teams can use more expensive, better technology.
We don't think that the athletes from low income countries should suffer from lower level equipment because of their poor financial situations. This is not fair because a rich country could buy smart watches that track their movements and tell them all of their personal statistics as well as what to eat, which will help athletes with things like running for example, they can also have high technology in their equipment like shoes.
If athletes and their teams spend all of their money on equipment they may not be able to focus on essential items, because they become obsessed with keeping up with the newest trends within technology, which may impact their mental and overall physical health. They could be wearing all of the best technology and training with the newest equipment, but if these are removed because of forgetfulness or breaking the rules, they may not perform at a higher standard because of their reliability of this technology (like in Basketball for example), these technology advantages prevent athletes from showcasing their actual skills, the work is done for them.
We have discussed the idea of all sports having a set uniform, that has the same level of technology, so no matter where you are from you are competing in the same clothing, footwear exc. There are pros and cons to this, the biggest pro would be the fairness of competing. However a con would be this would impact all of the pre -existing records, as they would have had technological advantages.
In my perspective that Technology plays a significant role in the realm of sports, offering substantial assistant identifying both errors and instances of cheating.Consider the implications technology serves as a crucial instrument in ensuring equitable competition.
For example in cricket, the Decision Review System (DRS) comes into play. Similarly,in tennis,Hawkeye is employed. These technologies empower umpires to make accurate judgements.
Moreover, in Formula 1 racing, the Halo helmet has proven to be a vital safety measure. Constructed from Titanium,this helmet has provided drivers with protection in the event of severe collisions.Consequently, in numerous ways, technology is fundamentally centred on promoting fairness.
Thanks for sharing! Could you provide some sources for your information?
From my point of view, teams that don’t have as much money have a disadvantage. If richer teams can buy advantages, how would that be fair? During the lesson, I found out that some of the staff had put a special thread in the skier's suit which made them go faster. The other teams didn’t have that kind of tech in their suits, so they had a disadvantage. The people that had the tech, had a higher chance of winning and the people who didn’t have the tech, had had a higher chance of losing. For the game to be fair, both sides have to have a 50/50 chance of winning for it to be fair. For those reasons, I don’t think that richer teams buy advantages because it would be unfair to the other teams.
I think richer teams can afford better sport technology for their athletes so therefore winter games are not fair because of latest technology.
In some country, the teams might buy the best things for sports...like shoes that can make them run faster...for this, this would be unfair for the other country's players who cannot afford it. In my opinion, i think competitions should depend on better training and practice not some cool stuffs or mordern things...by technology they can take advantage of it like cheating in sports. And the players from middle class team gets lost for this.
However i dont thik money can buy everything. To win in winter games the teams should make their mentality strong with a lots of training with sharp brain. So that it will be more fair to both teams..
I also think the games should limit the technology to make it more fairer to everyone
(Forgive me if i make any mistakes)
No, I don't think this is fair. The reason why I say this is because some teams don't have that much money. Richer teams may always win against poor teams because of the advantage. It may also ruin the experience for spectators. For example, imagine you are watching a game of soccer and your favorite team is in the lead but then the other team has bought a machine that makes you run faster. Would you think that's fair? Imagine seeing the other rich team buy stuff to beat pure skill. Would you even want to watch the game at this point knowing the other team is going to win the competition? To sum everything up this is why I think it's not fair. What do you think?
Hello , look at it from this perspective ,imagine you spend your whole life training( for, say the olympics), and working hard then comes the day to compete ,you pour your heart out and try as hard as you possibly can, but then comes the rich team that get all the points,and gets everything first try because of their advanced technology , not only does it make it unfair but it kills the passion for the sport, without passion ,we have no drive, no motivation ,and no fun.Personally ,I feel that sports is something i very look forward to, so some people having a " cheat code" seems very unfair .
Hi! I am quickwitted_earth. I will be discussing the Winter Games. I think the Winter Games are not fair because some people might try to cheat in the Winter Games. The players might even change how the game is played for years. So, the Winter Games are not fair because some will have a disavantage. By disadvantage I mean like,they do not have that type of tech.That means, the player or players that have the type of tech that helps them, that is an advantage. One more reason is that they might change the game they are playing. If some person cheated in a game and no one knew that player who won by cheating. It could also change by another player knowing and trying to make that same tech for themselves. To sum everything up, In my opinion I think the Winter Games can sometimes be unfair.
Hi, I'm devoted_owl and I will discuss my opinion on more advanced technology for specific athletes in the Winter Games. If some teams could buy better technology for their athletes I think it shouldn’t be considered fair. Using a more advanced technology instead of everything being just because of money difference shouldn’t count. Since the Olympics is about skill they should show it and if they use something that does more for them it’s ruining the point. Having everybody have the same material would be much better actually helping determine the skill of a person. Even if the technology does the same thing but has different materials I think it still isn’t fair since one could hold more weight than the other which completely drowns out the idea of fairness. On the other hand if everyone had the same technology it could make the game more interesting or less interesting which I think depends on what type of technology they are using. This is my opinion on more expensive / advanced technology for the Winter Games
In my opinion, I think that if richer teams spend more money on newer technology it might be unfair for the other teams that can’t afford it. Also, it could make it more fun if everyone has it but since it’s only richer teams it makes it unfair. Also, it could be fair if all teams have the exact same advantages and disadvantages so they have the same benefits and problems. It could be fair depending on what kind of technology it is. For example, if it’s a smart watch that tells you your health and things like that I wouldn’t say that is cheating. It could be cheating if the technology is like a smart shirt that tells you when you need a break and are about to get injured. Also, it could be cheating if that team knows it’s cheating but does it anyway. It couldn’t be cheating if the team buys something that is tech but they buy smart glasses or some tech like that. In conclusion, I think it could be cheating if a team buys technology, but it depends what kind of technology.
I think if a team in the Winter games has money for advantages it will not be fair, because they can spend money on technology and suits. Also if a team is paying for technology that the other team already has, it is fair because it is an equal opportunity. One team has technology help and the other team has technology help. If the Winter games provide one team with technology, then the other team uses their money for technology it’s okay. If a team is using their money on technology and suits to cheat the game, that is a problem! Therefore, the Winter games do not provide equal opportunities because a team has a higher advantage. Therefore, in my opinion you should rely on skill, and nobody should get an advantage.
Hello, have you heard of the winter games? In my opinion I think that the winter games should kind of have sports tech now. Before you judge me, let me show you my way of thinking. Imagine the sports team with the less money has to rely on pure skill while the richer one has AI that can help them so they can just win easily. Now imagine it this way people donate to help the team get the things they need. So if people don't donate you ask simply that the winter games don't happen. So if we did this we wouldn't have to worry about cheating in the winter games because there wouldn't be anything to cheat on. Now i know your thinking what if nobody agrees to this back up plan the team with less money who fight teams with more money the team with more money will use the same equipment as the teams with less money to there for it is fair. But i dont know if you have a different opinion tell me in the comments 👍 anyway bye o heres a joke. What do athletes do with a camera? They take olympics haha. But for real 😂 bye.
I think that richer teams which buy better technology for their athletes so therefore the winter games are not fair because the people who are playing with just pure talent could be over shun by people with technology as they could have a better car or equipment.An example of this is, giving one team a scrunched up paper to make a plane and giving the other a normal piece of paper for the same goal.The people with the normal piece would obviously win.This example proves the people(or teams) with better technology or resources will have better performances.
I believe that the Winter Olympics are fair, due to the fact that it would be unfair to deny a team its right to maximise the capabilities and use of their technology in sport. A team should be able to use their money in whatever way they wish (with the exceptions below). Sports technology has proven to be a possibility for someone to maximize their inner ability, hence it isn't unjust nor cheating- it just allows improvement.
In a world where we strive for improvement and success (especially in the Winter Olympics), how can we find it plausible to deny someone the possibility to fulfil their true potential?
Even though money can buy better facilities and technological equipment, the sports world has proven that talent and hard work beats privileged and wealthy backgrounds. For example, Usain Bolt (8-time Olympic gold medallist) was forced to face poverty at a young age. He didn't have fancy sports equipment or technology that would give him an advantage in sports, but that didn't stop him from achieving what many wealthier people couldn't. To those who believe a team shouldn't use their economic position to advance themselves in a sport, I ask: is it then fair that some people have more talent than others?
However, I do believe that there is a limit to how much a team (especially in sports where few seconds can make a difference) can invest in new technology, like Formula 1 . As this drastically changes the dynamics of the sport, rendering it truly unfair. In fact, the Federation Internationale de L'automobile (FIA) has set limitations based on this belief.
I think that lots of teams can buy an advantage but lots of teams can not as they are poorer but the richer teams can have a better chance of winning(better technology, better equipment) this can cause some unfairness which can lead to arguments their should be a spending limit atleast as the poorer teams can not afford the better equipment which leads to fair decisions and the sport not being unfair they should put a good spending limit on where teams can buy good things still and it won’t be as unfair this would be better
I think that richer teams have an advantage, so therefore the Winter Olympics are not fair because tech is a very significant part of sports. While there may be skilled players who won't fully depend on technology they could also be terrible sports players who would heavily benefit and even become as good or better than the skilled players if they have more funds for technology. Additionally, richer teams can provide players with more health and medical related technology.
This would make sure that they are healthy and fit for competing in sports. This type of technology could also help players with injury recovery. Without medical technology sports teams may have less players available resulting in the opposing team having an upper-hand.
Lastly, technology in sports greatly affects data tracking and score keeping. Scoreboards, data trackers, and other automatic technologies can help keep up data accurately. For example, a coach with a stopwatch could make more mistakes than cameras and automatic data trackers. If manual data trackers have flaws the scores may be affected giving a wrong win to a team.
So I believe there should be some financial limits or teams should share money to make the Winter Olympics fairer. What is your stance, do you agree with me and think the Winter Games are not completely fair or do you disagree with me.
I think some teams can buy an advantage which sometimes leads to unfairness in the winter games.
The richer teams can buy an advantage which includes better sports technology, faster equipment and better sports ficilitys.
This can cause some unfairness to the poorer teams in the winter games which some teams don’t like.
They should at least put a spending limit on the equipment that they can buy.Which can still get them good equipment and it won’t be as unfair but will still get them good equiptment in the winter games.
I think that it would be a really good idea to put a spending limit/budget on what they can spend so that it won’t be as unfair for the poorer teams but the Richer teams can have a little bit of a boost.
I think that this would be the fairest way to do it as they won’t have as much as a boost compared to what they have now from the richer teams compared to the poorer teams
I believe the richer teams do have the advantage, but in the way you think. I think the teams that aren't funded as much as other teams don't believe they can win, so they chicken out and then the richer teams win. So yes the richer teams have the advantage, but with funding yet with mind play.
Although the richer teams most likely deserve the income, I honestly think that it is not fair that richer teams have a great advantage over the teams with less money. Sports are supposed to be unbiased for everyone so it's fair if a team wins, not just because of a good advantage the team bought. For example, let's say a country just started off in the Winter Games. They are going against a team that has been part of the Winter Games for decades now. Nine times out of ten, the older team is rich and has bought bunches of useful technologies. The newbie team will obviously lose. If technology keeps excelling, it will soon be impossible for a newbie country to win against an older country. Overall, it is not too fair that some teams have technologies that can literally change how some of the Winter Games even play. Some can argue that it is more dynamic for other teams to have advantages, but I think that it is brutal that some countries that just started have to deal with advanced ones.
I think that the winter games are not fair because of how technology is used nowadays. Richer teams inevitably have more money and funding to spend on the latest technology for training, which puts the teams who don't have as much money at a disadvantage. The poorer team might have really skilled and talented athletes/players, but they might not have had the technology that helps them train for the real-life situation, while the richer teams might have players who are less talented but still win because they have trained for the situation using advanced tech and devices that only they can afford. Furthermore, richer teams might also know how to win a game before anyone else does because they've trained for it already, which, in my opinion, is cheating because the scenario is supposed to be new for everyone. Therefore I think the Winter Games are unfairly biased against poorer teams.
I think that richer teams cannot buy advantages because it makes the winter olympics not fair and the regular teams can't buy any advantages or giving the richer teams more fundings to spend on the latest sports technology. therefore the winter games are primarily fair so the teams have chances and opportunitys, but unfair because if richer teams rely on newer sport technology, it will be not fair to the regular team and will have a big downfall of them succeeding.
I believe technology can ruin the experience if used incorrectly or if used to exploit the sport's rules. I instead think that technology should be used to an extent and not be grouped with the normal world records that were beaten purely naturally or used without technology to acknowledge both contributions while being equal
I do believe that richer teams can buy advantages, so this means that not all sports are always fair. The richer teams could buy better stuff than a different team; for example a track team with money can buy shoes that have that allows the runner to have a more explosive start than others without the shoe. Another example is that a richer team could buy technology that could track pace and heart rate which the coach could monitor and make decisions about, and how the runner has to train or if the athlete has to change how they train.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage, so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because the richer team can have the better quality of equipments than the poorer teams and also the equipments can work faster. Even if the equipment is a little better having a slight bit of advantage can change everything in the games. For example most countries like China have spent about $1 billion dollars on equipment and they also have high quality on those equipment, if you compare that to a country that has spent way less than a few millions dollar do you think that would've been fair? Even if they spent a little less than China they still could've lost because having a small advantage can still change the actual game by a lot. The Olympics agree that using technology is okay because it helps athletes to get better, but every athlete doesn't have the same expenses on equipment which makes it unfair for the athletes, but doesn't for the athletes that have the better equipment. Countries in Africa don't spend that much on sport technology because they are facing economic issues, so how are their equipment supposed to be equal to those countries like China or Pakistan. Overall I think that richer teams can buy the advantage for many reasons like having better quality on equipment, having more money than other countries, and having faster equipment, so I definitely agree that richer teams can buy an advantage.
I think the richer teams can buy technology to help them while other teams who might have less money might not be able to afford it,which makes the games unfair.
While I don't think the Winter Games are fair if they allow teams to buy help, there could be a reason to use it without it being cheating. A player could be out making it uneven, the other team is cheating, or most of the team may be absent. Even if you think/don't think it should be possible. There may be actual reasons for doing it. Thank you for your time.
I think the richer teams can get a advantage therefore the Winter Games are not fair because even though the game could be mostly skill the richer team could get a coach or have advanced equipment to play the games better while the poorest team can't have a coach or good equipment and the rich team could also and they could pay to show them skills or secret ways.
I think richer teams shouldn't be able to buy an advantage so therefore the Winter Games would be fair because then, it's gonna be based on raw talent. The Winter Games are supposed to be based on your ability to have competition and test your raw ability to problem solve an or your athletics . The Winter Games are supposed to be a fun competition by using advanced technology just to easily win . So therefore to have a challenge and a fair game of raw talent . I believe the games would be more enjoyable when we are working with raw talent so we can appreciate raw talent and you can look up to them without them having crazy expensive technology that doesn't show raw talent what so ever. This is why I think that using crazy expensive technology wouldn't be fair an that the Winter Games would be more enjoyable if you appreciate raw talent without technology .
I think that it is not fair because some of the teams have the technology to do so, but other teams that have the money 💰 but lack the technology cannot afford it for every single one of their players.
For instance, in the Olympics, when a a race is being held and one of the teams have the technology, and the other does not have it, they will be found lacking.
In conclusion, I think if the Winter Game 🎮 is to be fair, organizers should support teams that need the technology and other equipment and facilities.
Thanks 👍😊
I think richer teams are able to buy training equipment which can help them train their skills. Since they can train more I don't think it's as fair.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage, so therefore the winter games are not fair at all. The first reason I say this is because since rich teams can afford stronger equipment it could be harder for the other team to beat. For example teams can buy more sturdy or stronger hockey sticks or more padded helmets. My next reason I say this would be unfair is because they can cause referees to not call as much fouls. For example someone might hurt another person and it will be turned like a blind eye. My final reason I say this is because they can bribe game officials to call off certain games and give the win to them. For example an official can call a fake foul just because of some money.
In conclusion there is a chance that some people can fall into the trap of bribery and it'll be totally unfair.
I believe people who are wealthy have more advantages then people who have less money. The Winter Games is unfair because others can get more technolgy to help them win, while others don't. I believe the only people who should get the technology that is affordable are people who are disabled.
If there is a type of technology that is affordable, Olymians should be offered to buy the technology. Technolgy that is affordable , everyone should have.
As for the Paralympics, they should have technology to help them throughout the games. Of course, affordable technology . I believe this because in the Paralymipics people may need more help.
Technology that is affordable, should be offered to the Olymians. I think it is unfair when not everyone has the same techonolgy, Olymipics nor Paralympics. I believe everyone should have the same level of equipment. After all, you still need the skill.
In my opinion, I think that a richer team can find an advantage, and therefore, the Winter Games aren't fair. This is because you have a better chance at winning than the other team, due to the gadgets that the team bought with their money, and I think that if the other team doesn't have the same thing to give them an advantage, it just isn't fair from my perspective.
I think that richer teams can buy better sports technology so therefore the winter games aren't fair because buying better technology is like buying a win. It is more likely to win because you have better equipment unless you're very bad at the sport.The thing is the better the product the more the money it cost if you are rich you can easily buy the better equipment. You would have to be one of the best of the best and most people aren't talented like that. For example wealthier nations (e.g., Germany, USA) develop, test, and manufacture proprietary sled technology, often proprietary, giving them an edge over countries using commercial, off-the-shelf equipment.This means that what Germany has is not open to the public this gives Germany a clear advantage in sledding. Also Teams with more funding invest in advanced wind tunnel testing for aerodynamics, specialized ski technicians (waxers), and custom-fitted equipment, providing a direct speed advantage.Lastly,Investing in custom-molded skates, advanced skating suits, and, most importantly, on-ice aerodynamic testing to optimize body position and drag. In conclusion a richer team can buy a better advantage.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because with money, they can have better things like equipment unlike others who might not have enough to buy equipment. An example of this is imagine you are in the Olympics, Other countries might be able to afford better practicing areas which might boost the player's stamina or power depending what sport it is.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage, but its the teams fault if they are not financially stable , broke, or more. Therefore, the Winter Games are fair because it's the teams fault for their financial situation. If one team is good with their money , it's only fair that they spend it! It's the team's job to get sponsors and donations. Say me and my friend both get a huge amount of money to start a new business, if my friend spends it all immediately, while I'm careful with my money. I obviously get the head start.
In my opinion, I say that richer teams buy advantages in the Winter Games. So therefore the Winter Games are not fair because a variety of sports technology can be a violation to the Winter Olympics and the Paralympics. For example, if a device that costs a hefty amount could increase your speed, it would be considered cheating because this device gives the person using it a slight boost. This is cheating because other people can't afford it and it gives you an unfair boost, which is to increase the speed for that person so that they could pass that challenge. In my opinion, I say that richer teams that buy advantages are cheating because it gives them the upper hand and will support their chances of winning.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because some countries are richer than others. Some countries can buy the best type of equipment, while other countries can barely afford the proper equipment.This can be very unfair since the cheaper sport equipment are usually worse than regular equipment.
I think that richer teams are going to have an advantage in sports,this is why I think the winter Olympics would not be fair as much,richer teams means better quality equipment,and more modern technology. The people with low quality equipment would miss out on better more modern technology that would help them win the competition fairly.
In my opinion I believe richer teams can buy more advantages like the chiefs like cheating and the refs don't call it but the commentators do instead and when the refs play it back they say it counts when it clearly doesn't.
Can you redo those 2 sentences and make more sense pls?, and add more information.
I think yes richer teams can buy better equipment because it can improve how well they could play in track soccer tennis basketball ect, so I think yes it is not fair for people with less funding . athletes should be given a fair advantage or everyone should wear the equipment that they give them.
No richer people do not have a big advantage because you don't pay to win It's all about speed and effort and intelligence.
I think that richer teams can buy better gear so they can get better tech so it is unfair to the other teams because they cant buy good equipment
money can buy more things so I agree :)
I believe richer teams can buy an advantage. When richer teams have any sort of problem, it's likely for them to pay off whatever problem they have. A great example of a richer team doing this is the Liverpool FC. They bought player tracking equipment to enhance skills. Furthermore, if a team has a lot of cash lying around. They would most likely go with the smartest option and buy utilities that allow players to be their best at any sport.
Another thing I want to say is equipment should be given with a fair advantage so athletes wouldn't have to be given a bigger advantage than other athletes.
I think the richer teams can buy faster technology to get an advantage to win which makes it unfair like shoes with better grip.They can also get better training to win.
I think when you look into news over the world it will give you more information about different parts of the world or the different nature in other countries and what different things are going around in the world like different storms or different events that going around in the world it will give you more information so you could be more interactive with the nations around you because they could share more information about their country you don't know about because they might have different ways then you do in your country.
Hello I think teams with larger budgets have have a large advantage because they can buy better tech and what I mean is like better shoes or gear than a team with a smaller budget that cant buy the best gear on the market. I personally think that teams with larger budgets could use the gear the other teams are using so it's not about tech just talent. It could also go the other way as well like for example a team with a smaller budget could use the same gear as the team with the bigger budget.
I think that yes because rich teams can buy advangates. and help and that is very unfair to the teams that struggle with getting money because rich teams can buy expensive equipment, protein packs and private lessons and ECT because not so fortunate teams can't do the same and have to stick to basic training and the equipment already provided which is also not alot.
In my opinion, in some cases richer teams can buy better sports technology for their teams, for example the coach of the team can probably buy equipment for the team like cleats, shin guards, or helmets. Although for the other team, the teammates might have to buy equipment for themselves and some might have limited equipment. However for the Olympics and Paralympics skill might be involved more in terms of strength, speed, stamina, or technique because you don't really need that much equipment in the Olympics like cleats. In conclusion depending on the sport you can have an advantage for being the richer team, and the Olympics and Paralympics are still fair.
In my opinion the Winter Games aren't entirely fair because some countries can buy better equipment then others to support the athlete,this can include things like better training,more materials,and higher quality shoes. On the other hand talent will shine through and there isn't a huge advantage for richer countries since you don't need funds to work hard.
I think that richer teams can buy an advantage, because richer people can buy equipment and technology that cost a lot which gives them an advantage and more practice. For example shoes, certain shoes have less grip or have better soles that help you jump better, and wristbands some people can't afford things like that. Also some people can't afford facilities or private coaches to
help their athlete. Lastly some people can't afford a goal for soccer or basketball, baseball bats, or practice. In conclusion I think rich people or people that can afford certain things have an advantage.
In my opinion it is not fair at all because the richer ones will take advantage and research on others.In this,they will know their weaknesses and therefore going on to defeat them.
In my opinion, I think it isn’t fair on poorer countries🇦🇫 because the richer countries 🇺🇸can afford fancy equipment, while the poor countries are stuck with their own body and a positive (and growth) mindset 🧠.
On one hand, it’s good for richer countries 🇺🇸because they can win and gain more things and boast to poorer nations.
On the other hand, poorer countries 🇺🇸feel useless and succumb to the insults and say they are useless, but if you take the richer 🇺🇸countries fancy equipment, you find that the poorer countries 🇦🇫are WAY better than the richer countries 🇺🇸.
So, I think it should be better if one person gets something, then everyone gets the same thing.
So, will every country get the same thing? Or will other countries be a sore loser?
I agree because that it won't be fair on poor people to actually have a chance to play in the Olympics and Paralympics and some people will think it's not fair and they even won't have enough money to get technology and they would also think that's cheating and wont learn anything from it and some countries are poor some are rich so therefore I agree with eager juniper.
this question really depends on the sport in question for example Football (or soccer depending were your from) has this rule of F.F.P wich is fianicial fairplay essentially. they want to make sure that your selling roughly the same price of players that your buying. otherwise teams like newcastle man city and chealsea would go around buying all the players. for example chealsea who is known of essentially buying ever single person as their part of the blue co model group. with FFP chealsea have bought 10 and sold 15 making it fairer for teams without as much fiancial firepower like fulham
I think that, on the one hand, it can be unfair because athletes from wealthier countries usually have access to better technology, more advanced equipment and better preparation overall. This advantage can make a differences in performance and results. However, it is also true that the Olympic and Paralympic Games have strict rules that limit the use of technology in order to reduce these inequalities and ensure fair competition.
From my point of view, all athletes should have the same opportunities when it comes to technology and the quality of their equipment, regardless of their country or economic situation. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to achieve, since not all countries have the same resources. Promoting equal opportunities should remain a key objective of international sports competitions.
I think that the Winter Games are unfair if some countries have more financial options than others. I think that if the advantage continues, the younger generation who might not be financially stable will be discouraged to participate in the Winter Games because of uncertainty or insecurity of not having the funds to have the same level opportunity with those who do have access to those funds.
As well as this . The Winter Games would be less about participation and enjoyment of the game and more about having the latest technology. It'll promote stress on the players who don't have the tech to work themselves even harder and those who do have the tech to not waste it, impacting both their mental health and consequently their physical health which directly impacts their performance.
However, I think it's illogical to put a complete ban on tech in sports because it does help people adapt. If we were to put a sudden cap to it, the countries that produce the equipment would lose a lot of their income. So, I instead propose putting a limit on how much money a country can use so that everyone has access to the same equipment. If not that then introduce Winter Games training facilities to every country participating and provide the same equipment for them all.
What do you think?
I think that higher income countries can definitely buy an advantage over lower incomr countries (e.g. in the form of the latest technology); which, in my opinion, makes the Winter Games unfair.
Ig technology is to be used in the Games, every team should be provided with the same equipment and not have to rely on their country’s economic status to win the Winter Olympics and Paralympics.
To me, the Olympic games have always been about bringing people from across the world together. By allowing teams to purchase rxyra technology (whereby giving them an advantage over teams without it), this message is destroyed. Technology, in this context, stops the Winter Games being about community and showcasing the best og a country; but about economics and showcasing what the rich countries can afford to win.
In my opinion i think if sports have more money than the other team they should not buy things which affect the other team, however they should spend it on their uniform so they aren't affecting the offer team.
I think that the winter games are not fair because some people are not going to play fair they might use technology to make it unfair for the other players that are not using the technology and the reason is because if they have a score of like 34/100and If they play again and if they get 99/100then they are using technology and it will make it unfair.
I do not think this is fair because if other teams get an advantage then they are more likely to win.If someone in a team uses an unfair advantage then they are not showing their real talent and they are more likely to lose skill then gain it.Everyone should use the same amount of technology so nobody has an advantage.But if you use technology then you need to be careful because it might give you a dis-advantage not an advantage.The winter games could not be fair because of this.
I think that richer teams with more funding could buy more supplies in order to win while poorer teams with less equipment are set up to lose
Is winning determined mainly by money and resources, or does talent still play a significant role?
The teams with more money will get an advantage because not only do they have money to buy better tech but also to buy better clothes or better shoes. This makes the winter games unfair because the teams can buy better shoes and those shoes could be gripped or they could make someone faster.
I also think it’s kind of fair at the same time because they would have worked for that money it wouldn’t have just appeared. The only problem with that is the coach could have been born into a rich family and could have used that money.
I agree with resplendet_blueberry because they said the games aren’t completely fair because some countries have a bunch of money while others don’t. And i think that the winter games should take away certain tech because it could give people to big of an advantage. While other tech give people a small advantage.
Bye topical talkers
Have a good day 👋🏻
i think richer teams are spending money to cheat and get an advantage , therefore ,the winter games are severely unfair and i definitely disagree with it because they have better equiptement .
it is fair because richer teams are using THEIR money
The Olympics should not a allow technology and the reason why is because if they allow it, the games will be rigged and it would be cheating and if you want get better you need to practice more.
I think the Olympic and Paralympic Games won't be as fair because since 2025,technology has gotten more advanced and nearly just as smart as a human. Technology has played a big part in history and they are making it even better each year. Another reason that the games won't be as fair this year is because if an athlete is already really good at the sport that they are competing in, they will just get extra help when they don't need it and therefore have a higher chance at winning the sport they are competing in.
I think it is not fair if some teams have more money to buy more equipment to train because it gives a team an unfair advantage over other teams so in the general sense, it IS unfair but some people might argue saying you cant buy skill , but I still think that if you have better training, you would have just bought skill and if you are playing in the winter games, you are defiantly talented so saying you cant buy talent is true but everyone has talent anyways if they are playing in the winter games.
To summarise what I have just said, you can buy skill and it is unfair.
I think richer teams can buy advantage,but then the winter game wouldn't be fair so even though wealthier sports teams CAN buy advantages they shouldn't.
It would be unfair because much less wealthier teams would not have a chance to win even though they are using real skill.
I don't think this is fair t so therefore the winter Games are not fair because your using technology and that won't be fair to the other countries of the world and spend more technology on funding for the Olymipcs and the Paralymics to use more tech instead of actually playing fairly its like cheating in your own competition and not actually using tech on sports and other people won't find it fair cause it's cheating and you won't be proud of yourself so basically your not doing any work your just leaving it on technology and also Athletes wont learn from sport they will just learn from technology so therefore I'm saying no.
Hey Topical Talk! I think they should not buy any advantages,because lets say Barcelona pay VAR to no count any fouls then that does not mean their better,it means their worse,since they have nothing to worry about,same with Winter Games,if someone or multiple people buy unfair equipment its not their work there letting the equipment work for them,so therefore strongly disagree about buying an advantage to there sport or sports unless its allowed.Thank you for reading this!
I think if you have a richer team for example Arsenal and their going against Man U which has less money than Arsenal if they use their money to buy unfair advantages like maybe a suit that tells you what move your opponent is going to make I feel like that would be called as cheating maybe if they use sport in training or to track your health I fell that would
be fine as long as you don't use it in the wrong way like the following example I gave and not to cheat.
Also following equipment must follow the rules set in the game not to be used as cheating . Technology is there to help and improve us not to take over our lives plus talent added to tech could enhance a better way to use it.
I think that richer teams can buy more advantages therefore it is not fair for the other teams.Others may disagree with me that it is fair . Richer teams may also buy more specialised equipment to help them win the Winter Games.People can also use technology to help their team win it.On the other hand people that do not use technology to help then may think that won in their heart because they used their talent instead of technology.They might be happy as you have to spend money to get some of technology.If you use technology it can also help you by training you to get stronger. Thank you for listening.
I think richer countries/teams can buy an advantage so therefore,the Winter Games are not entirely fair because some countries can spend more money on technology while others cannot.This new and improved equipment includes faster tools,superior coaches/trainers and even better clothes and facilities!
Technology is allowed in sports,but I think it shouldn't give an unfair advantage,especially for the poorer countries and teams(no offense).I absolutely agree with technology in sports,but I also think it should't give an unfair upper-hand in sports.For example in races,using better equipment for example better shoes gives an advantage to people who cannot afford it.Also,I think money doesn't buy winners and winning as athletes have to train a lot to win medals and cups.
Technology plays a big part in sports and I think it should be used, but not in a bad way!
Thanking for reading and what about you,do you think sports gives an unfair advantage this year in the 2026 Winter Olympics?
I think the richer teams with more technology can buy and advantage so this means that the Winter Games are not fair.This is because that they have more expensive and more valuable equipment.They are also not being fair because mainly you should let your talent and practice pay off.Technology can give a better chance and effect,therefore it is cheating. For example, races can be hugely effective and although they can add a small change it could make major chance and oppurtunity.We should be equal and fair so everyone can have a better chance to get awards because normally cheating can't get medals in Olympics.
Should we get high value equipment or be fairer?
In the Olympics, each country competing has their own team. Richer countries are able to afford gear and training systems that enhance and improve the athletes' performance, which can prove to be an unfair advantage when playing against other teams who are representing countries who have less money and cannot afford to be paying for all this. I believe sports should not be based on money, but on the skills and talent of the athletes, on their determination and love for the game. Technology will always play a part in sports, especially since it is growing more and more popular, but it should not be allowed to take over. In my opinion, sports are not in need of any tech, but I do agree it can sometimes improve the experience in whole, so long as it does not give some teams the upper hand and ensure the game runs smoothly, decreasing extra time needed, similar to what happens sometimes in football.
I know that technology can improve games but it can also prove to be unfair.
I think richer teams have an advantage so therefore Winter Games aren't fair because using tech and funding dosen't prove talent ,training and hard-work, but shows how much money your team is willing to spend on you. Sports stem from P.E (Physical Education) and I don't think an A.I or tech helping you play is too physical or helps you exercise. It also is fraudulence because actual good players are overshadowed due to their team's low funding.
However, it isn't all tech and no skill and some techs are helpful for safety issues and motoring heart rate and body temperature.
If an athlete uses techs for improved accuracy in their sports and doesn't train they aren't going to win.
So in summary, I don't agree with all techs but I do agree with some but equal opportunities should be given to all athletes like funding for techs for those who do not have the money or banning techs that aren't for medical or safety reasons.
Hi, in my opinion money can buy advantage, but not fairly .I think this because, richer countries can obviously afford more so if they bought good quality tech then they can use it to cheat and not use there talents to there best abilities.Another reason i think its not fair is beacuse in my opinion if your going to use tech it should not be used while playing.
no it is not fair because of you are not feeling the excitement about it because you are technically using AI to be in sports and i think its also a disadvantage because if your team is richer than the other team then they have a higher advantage because the poorer team is cant afford it and it woud not be fair so everybody has to use the same technology but on the other hand ithink it not cheating because if your trying to be great at it then you can use AI but if your good you shodent use AI
I think that it is unfair this is because some countrys are poorer than others .This means that other country can afford more advance teck of a higher price while others not as good .this means that the other countrys will have an unfair advantage and this is known as cheating. sorry its not as long i didnt have much time at school :]
i think it gives an unfair advantage as not every country has enough money to buy modern tech to help competitors ,while other countries rely on pure talent .Not all countries may be able to afford highly advanced tech to help train or track improvement and as the people compete they will nit get to count on help from the tech and will only rely on their own .
Yes because it's basically cheating.The reason why is because they have a higher advantage because they have more money and if they more money they will be able to buy higher tech. I believe that others should have the same tech or no tech so it would be more fair. but other people may think that if you are bad at some sports that they think it could help them . but you should try it your self and get better at it.
I think that using technology in sports such as the Winter Games can cause teams to have a bigger advantage during the sport they are playing. However, I believe that having money and using money as a tool are completely different topics because using money in an unfair ways is against the rules.
This is because teams with less money and less equipment can not prove to referees that something was misjudged or announced incorrectly.
An example of this can be if two players race each other - one using tech and the other not - if the one without tech was the winner the one with tech could use VAR to accuse the judge to tell them that is was misjudged using VAR to prove them wrong and the one with tech would win.
I think the winter games are not fair because people that are more wealthy and have more affordable tech have an unfair advantage compared to teams which have less money so main players have a hard time upgrading their skills to use in a game.
Even though some teams have more money that doesn't always ensure a absolute win, some players only play with their own skills. As an example, some people in my class were talking about how they did not want tech to improve their skills they wanted to use their own hard work to improve their skills.
Some people use tech to track their heart rate: others don't as they feel it will ruin their pride to use tech. Instead I think some people can use it as a tool to help them practice while not using it in a real game.
What do you think, should people use tech in a game of hard work or not?
I think no so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because some countries might not have enough to win or to give a boost and some countries like to spend their money on things that will help their country become safer for everyone and to make it eco-friendly. But it is also fair because some people will need it if they lost a leg or an arm and it is really important because it does make a big and good difference for people who are disabled.
i think that if some teams can afford better sports technology for their athletes this two competition are not fair because we all have to use our skills and win based on our prowess.
If the technology change our skills the competition isn't longer fair
I think that richer teams can buy advantage, but it wouldn’t be fair for other teams that don't have as much money. So therefore the Olympic and Paralympic games aren’t fair.
In fact, Poorer teams can’t buy as advanced technology as richer teams but they can buy things like lower priced and low quality tech. It’s not fair to poorer people to not have the same advanced technology like reused technology. Maybe buy extra pieces but not as advanced as the richer teams. For example, Manual Gear Shifters are BASIC reliable modifications to regular bikes. Also, the richer teams may have tech that helps increase the running stance or stamina.
For these reasons, I think that richer teams can buy advantage.
I believe that richer sports teams should not be allowed to buy advantages. Winning the Winter Games and/or Paralympics should be based on skill, not on which team can buy better equipment. So, if richer teams could buy newer and more expensive tech, then the games would be unfair.
Sometimes teams don’t get funded as well as other teams, giving them a disadvantage. In my area, sports teams like football and basketball don’t get much support from parents. At games, there are only a few people in the stands and their uniforms look old and out of date. Meanwhile, other better-funded teams can buy better and more comfortable equipment, which can make playing easier. Different equipment would only be fair if every team could afford it.
Money may not win medals, but it would be unfair to someone who had trained for years for a person with better tech to be able to reach the same level just by buying better equipment. Money should not be allowed to replace skill.
Is money more important than talent? Can rich teams buy better tech to ensure victory? Well, I believe this is very true. Teams that have more money should not be allowed to buy better equipment. Just visualize yourself in the Winter Games, ready to compete, but your opponents have better equipment than you! Would you think that’s fair, because I wouldn't!
Just because you have more wealth and resources than your competitors does NOT mean you can just buy better equipment to win. Understandably, the team with more money has worked for it, but we should keep the competition fair! In my opinion, buying better training should be fine, but more advanced equipment and tech is just cheating.
In the Norwegian ski suit scandal, a team used a special thread to advance their ski suits. Though it didn’t say anything about money, that thread most likely cost a lot! If they didn’t get caught, the competition would’ve been VERY unfair! Think of it like a math competition, but your opponent has a calculator! You wouldn’t think that is fair right?
I suggest we put a limit to the financial spending for the winter games, if one team has an advantage,the game will be unfair. Not all countries have the resources, so we need to make the materials given equal and fair. The less fortunate should have the same equipment as everyone else, this is about talent, not our money!
In conclusion, I believe that we should limit, or even get rid of advantages bought with money. Poor countries should not lose solely because of financial problems compared to wealthy countries.
I think that for various winter sports such as ice hockey, skiing, figure snowboarding, bobsleigh, etc. Both skill and technology are needed. Because in something, one's skill reveals it and it becomes easier through technology. For example, when something is made from bamboo or any natural product, it can be done in a short time with a few people in large factories through science and technology. On the other hand, the work of skill involves the hard work and love of hundreds of people. Similarly, for the necessary things for winter sports such as Ice skate, Ski pole, Goggles, Thermel we take the help of technology. Through the skill of the player, the future of his dreams is built, the means of winning the game and entertainment.
I think that richer teams can buy better technology, which is fair but if they buy really good things then that is cheating. What I'm saying is people need to have a budget of the amount of money that the other team has, and not use their money to cheat or flex.But sometimes buying advantages aren't good because If you are playing basketball it would be cheating if you buy shoes that make you jump high. Bribing the ref is something that happens way too much so buying slight advantages might help you but it is still going to make it unfair.
In my opinion, it matters if a team can buy advantages.
Sports aren’t about how rich the team is, it is about skill and strategy. If one team has the latest tech and another team has the oldest tech, that doesn’t necessarily mean the team with the newest is going to win. Maybe the team with the latest tech will have a better chance of winning, but that doesn't mean they're going to win all the time. A team with old resources doesn’t mean they're bad, it just means that the team might not be able to afford as much as the other. The team still may be good and do a great job.
In the lesson, we discussed the Norwegian ski team scandal. The team cheated with a thread that helped them jump higher. The thread was banned, and the team got disqualified for cheating. In my opinion, that was fair.
This is why I say that it matters if a team can buy advantages.
I think richer teams have bigger advantages, so I think that the Winter games are not fair. The richer teams might bribe the judges or the referees. Another reason is that the richer teams might buy technology that can give them more advantages like running faster, jumping higher, and sometimes it's just not fair for the other teams. Also, the other teams might not have enough money to buy the technology that the richer teams do. If the richer teams use technology, that would be cheating because the other teams might not have enough money and technology. It will not be as fair.
I think it is crazy poor teams don't get the latest tech and rich teams do so therefore the winter games are not fair because of the unequaled by the different in income and the unfair equipment exchange like imagine your self in a match and you see people using tech that you don't have or acquire while your trying to win is unfair.
I think this is not fair because richer teams can buy expensive equipment and poor teams have to use cheaper items for training. so I think that richer teams can buy advantage so winter games are not fair to the other teams because the richer teams can get better equipment than the poor teams that has to use the cheaper equipment.
I think that richer teams have a huge advantage because richer teams can buy better equipment, technology, and more. Therefore, the winter games are not as fair as it seems. This includes better trainers, facilities, and sponsors. All of these tiny details can make big differences in any sports like racing, swimming, and more sports.
I think richer teams could buy better equipment to win so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because better equipment means higher chances to win, but the richer team has to make sure they don't spend all of their money, and if they do they would have a lower chance to win.
I think it`s not fair that richer teams have an advantage. This is unfair because it would not be equal for the people that have less money. They might have better equipment than others so won't have the best protection.
Hi
Richer can buy advantage. Most often that is what happens. There are two aspects in which this can happen. First of all in the technology aspect they can by more efficient and higher equipment that has been advanced by the use of technology.
Lastly they can indulge in bribe they can try to buy of the people in charge to help them win games.
there is no problem to me because if the school can afford the latest sports technology they will buy it to make their team better in sports.
I think richer teams can buy advantage, so therefore the Winter Games aren't necessarily not fair because the people who don't buy to get an advantage have a disadvantage against the richer teams that spend more money on sports technology, such as better training facilities, more efficient equipment and more. These tiny advantages make a difference because they make a big difference in races. However I don't really think that paying to win or to get an advantage can automatically buy you medals. Another reason why I don't think it's fair is because many other athletes work very hard and have trained for many years, while others use more advanced technology which gives them an advantage. Therefore, I think some games should limit their technology to make the game more equal.
I think it depends on the situation.
Richer teams can buy better gear with their money. Better gear costs more money. With the better gear, they have more advantages to win.So if they have better gear, then the other team has a lower chance of winning.
I Also think that if a team has more money, they may not win. Even if the poorer team has less money and worse gear, what if the poorer team is more talented than the richer and they win?
That’s why I think it depends on the situation.
in my opinion it is unfair because sport technology can help athletes have a unfair advantage. It can help them with workouts and show how they can improve in muscle growth, stamina, and other stuff . This can show an unfair advantage because some athletes do not have this advantage. They will most likely lose because they do not have all of those advantages. It would be super unfair, so yes, I think tech will be an unfair advantage .
Can you share some other examples of how sport technology can help athletes?
One example is in football. They have things that can show the athletes data and other things. There is ai that can enhance a player's performance, safety, and officiating accuracy. That can help a lot, even though some people cannot get that technology because of money. These are some examples, but there are lots of other techs for other sports.
In my opinion I think teams with more money can buy better sports technology giving teams without the money for better technology an unfair advantage. For example better materials,technology and that's not all,better equipment can also help train the athlete better. Little things like that matter a lot when it comes to things like the Paralympics or the Olympics.
Can you say why it helps in the Paralympics and the Olympics?
The Winter Games, a competition that happens once every four years, is based on talent and skill, or are they? From my perspective, richer teams can buy advantages with the best tech there is because of their sheer money and funding. This technology in the upcoming Winter Games is making athletes with skills and talents who trained for hours less likely to win. They are being beaten with new technology that not all teams can afford. These technologies have made athletes compete with legal cheats to win and not the better and non-cheating athletes and teams. For example, from the presentation, it talks about the Scandinavian Scandal when a Norwegian team got caught for reinforced stitching for their ski suits, giving them an advantage. This is an example of how richer teams can buy advantages as other teams couldn't because of the huge money gap. To conclude, yes richer teams can buy an advantage.
I think that richer teams have an advantage by to be able to buy more equipment or supplies so therefore the winter games are not fair because richer teams have an advantage in equipment like by high budgets allow them to acquire talent and could even hire elite coach, also if their equipment break they new ones but the broke team cant even have the money to spend on one or two, but the rich team can have the latest equipment and more that is why think it is unfair for one team to have every thing but one does not.
Hey ,I am open minded I agree with you because ,some teams have the ability to share the latest action information with their team. There are other teams who cannot help like that. Also the training method should make itself important if a team is given high quality training with modern everything then everything around them gives a feeling of success but it is not possible to do it just by sharing equipment. For good training a coach is also needed. A coach should have at least 4-5 years of experience. So that he can give good information and help the athletes .I expressed my opinion. thank you.🙂🙂👍
In my personal opinion, I believe that if some teams can afford better technology for players, the Olympics and Paralympics are unfair. My first reasoning on why I believe this is because it caters to the mindset of just buying your way to victory instead of having the talent which makes the player actually valuable. If I were in charge of the Olympics and Paralympics, to make things fair, I would have every team use the same exact equipment so that it is truly tested on skill, not wealth.
Another reason why I would say that this is unfair is because, some richer teams will have better, more high quality training environments. This factor may not seem like a big deal, but training in a more comfortable place can definitely help with performance as cited from this article (NSCA, also known as the National Strength and Conditioning Association): "Some atmospheres, or cultures, are more conducive to training than others and the leaders of the facility can directly influence that culture. " This shows that experts have proven that training in a more convenient place can affect how people play, and how this relates to the question is that richer teams are more prone to have these types of training spaces compared to poorer teams.
I think it is not fair because people that can't afford better sports technology can't play the same as others. That would not be fair for other people. For example, if someone has some boosters in their shoes that make them jump higher. That would not be fair because not everyone has that.
Yea it’s fair but also not fair because the people who didn’t buy good tech might not win due to others buying good technology but I mostly agree it’s not fair so they shouldn’t use better tech all should use tech that aren’t better or worse then others so it’s fair bye thanks for reading this!
I think high-tech equipment and more money buys advantage over the strengths and powers of the actual athlete, so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because the less privileged countries, which don’t have the money and power to become as good as the other talented athletes.
Technology plays a huge role in sports, but all equipment should follow the rules in the game. For example: In the marathon the shoes sole thickness has to be under 50mm to be allowed access into the race.
Even then hardwork can pay off and potentially hold victory. But the athlete would have to work twice as hard as the other.
I think money and technology does help, but hardwork and dedication can also work out as all athletes have probably had to train for YEARS or even more.
In modern sports, a familiar accusation keeps returning, that technology and money have replaced fairness. Carbon fibre spikes, aerodynamic suit, data analytics and prosthetics, critics argue that victory is engineered and not earned. But in my opinion, this view misunderstands what technology actually does. It just shapes conditions and not the outcome.
Consider sprinting. Two runners may be wearing the same spikes, but one will react in an instant while the other will be a fraction of a second slow. That split second can't be paid or programmed. In ski racing, technology helps reduce drag, but it can't decide the racing line at 120km/h. Technology just sets the stage. Human judgement can only perform the play. Of course richer teams have more resources. They have better infrastructure, more players, more sophisticated technology. But money only buys the tools, not the trophies. If it were otherwise, the wealthiest teams would win every game, every year, but they don't. Because sport ultimately reveals what money can't produce: talent, decision making under pressure and execution. The paralympics are the best demonstration of this fact. Medals are not awarded by prosthetics, if they were, the same blades would mean the same medal winners. This is equality via innovation. Sports is fair because technology is not invisible, but because winning still requires what no technology or money can buy: timing, pain tolerance and guts to do when it counts.
I think that richer teams have a bigger advantage than other teams that have less money than other teams but I think that it is not fair to have richer items so I think that you should have the same equipment and if you all have the same equipment you will all have the exact same chance of the games .
I believe that the Winter Games should have the exact same rules as anything else and I think that everyone should have the same clothes and the same equipment to have the same chance for winning the game , I don’t think it is fair because saying if you are running you should have the same shoes as everyone else .
Everyone should have the same equipment and experience as everyone else if you want to have a chance for winning - placing and for example every person should have the exact opportunity as everyone else if you want to play fairly , for example everyone’s souls in there shoes should be the exact same size as anything else .
At swimming events you should have the same experience because if you all have the same googles you would be able to swim the same event , if you have the same swimsuit I think that people will think that you are copying them and it will be more fair for you to have different things in swimming and the same things in running so you stand a better chance.
Do you think the Winter Games should have the same advantages ?
I think no because that means you are basically buying the win .For example is one guy cant run at all and he is against an Olympic champion but the guy who can’t run buys shoes that give him an advantage and that guy wins that isn’t fair at all . Also it is basically just cheating and would not benefit the company because who wants to do a race with cheaters.
I think that it is a disadvantage for people/teams that have less money than the other teams/players because technology costs a lot of money and some people can’t afford it. Whereas It is an advantage for other players that can afford it in the sport that they are playing.
For example, in swimming if you have electronic goggles that maybe show you a timer for a gala it could help you win if the other swimmers don’t have them goggles because not everyone can spend that kind of money on swimming goggles.
If people use technology during the Winter Games I would call it cheating.
I think it is only fair to use extra help (such as tech) is you have either a disability or if you are hurt.
I THINK it is fair, because a team who can afford technology will train better and perform better ,while those who can't afford will not .This imbalance will produce a negative reaction from the level of the game, and they will not enjoy the game .
Can you share why you say the "imbalance will produce a negative reaction"?
I think that richer countries will make the games unfair because they can just buy more and more to improve their athletes whereas poorer countries cannot buy the best equipment to improve their game. Therefore rich countries can just buy the win.
Can you say how the equipment will improve the game?
i think the equipment will improve the team by having lots of training with maybe the same stuff as the actual game will make the players more experienced. also tech like watches to keep track of heart rate might be too expensive for the poorer teams to buy so the players also might not be able to stay safe as well as play the sport because of the amount of money that their countries have.
I agree because richer teams could buy more and better equipment due to how much money they have.This means that poorer teams won't have better equipment and would have a decreased amount of a chance to win.So I think that it is very unfair that richer teams can buy an advantages to have a better chance of winning
I think the Olympics should
Equalize the teams as they would
In a way to make everything good
fund the poor teams because they could
And get the world's best sensations
Some teams try to use improved tech
Which sometimes the winter games counts as a trick
When the trick isn't violated, teams get sick
Of cheaters using their way out of violations
In my opinion, they shouldn't cheat
And just stick with the heart monitor to check the beat
Unfairness isn't the way to go
So justice creates the right flow
If they won with a tech of this kind
How would they have peace of mind,
And get a wink of sleep at night?
Critical thinking, creativity and inspiration
Are what we gain throughout topical talk
Navigating the world without discrimination
Becoming, though different classes worldwide, one folk.
IPS October 2, Egypt
I think richer teams can buy a little of an advantage. Before the Winter Olympic starts, the richer teams can buy better gear, which can help them play better during the game. This makes the game not fair for the poorer teams. The advantages can help the richer teams get a better lead, but not the poorer teams, since they can not afford the better gear.
Technology has gotten way better over time. Every small advantage can help, giving the poorer teams a smaller chance to win. However, by the Olympic rules, you can not buy the best gear available. You can only buy what is allowed. This still gives an advantage, but not a very big one.
So in my opinion, I think it is not that fair for richer teams to buy better gear and poorer teams can’t.
Can richer teams buy an advantage? I think it’s fair because the coach can see the runner's or players' data to see what they are missing. This can help them to practice and to get better at these skills. For the richer team, they buy sensors to track the runners, but for the poorer team, they have less technology to help train the players.
However, it is unfair for the richer team to rig the game.
I think some teams are richer so they have enough money to buy proper equipment for their athletes where as some other team aren’t that rich so they can’t buy that much equipment but in my opinion some teams can afford better stuff than other teams can.
Can you share some examples of the equipment they're buying?
I think the winter Games are not fair because, just like in every day life, the best tools often beat the best intention just as a student with a high speed laptops and AI has a massive head start over someone with just a pencil and a textbook. In 2026 , it's not just about who has a faster sled it's about who has the best AI driven data just as a student today who uses advanced AI to research and structure their essay has a massive head start over a student with just a book , top tier Olympic teams are now using AI to simulate thousands of race scenarios before they even touch the snow . They use digital twins of tracks like the Stelvio in Italy to calculate the exact millisecond to turn, while athletes from smaller nations have to figure it out by trial and error
I think richer teams can buy an advantage, so therefore The winter games still can be fair or not it depends on how they will use advantage of it
Why might this be unfair?
Wealthy nations have huge budgets and resources to develop advanced equipment, such as carbon fiber running shoes, wind tunnel-engineered bicycles, and high-tech prosthetics for the Paralympics, which poorer nations cannot afford due to their high cost
Why is it still considered fair?
There are strict rules. International committees set specific technical standards. If a technology exceeds permissible human limits, it is banned.
No matter how good the shoes or the bike, muscle strength, training, and mental will be the most important part for winning. Technology cant help someone without talent.
That's my opinion and thanks for reading it.
I think this is unfair, so therefore the Winter Games are not completely fair, and I say that as someone who still loves watching them. On paper, the Olympics and Paralympics are about talent, effort, and dedication. But in reality, athletes don’t start from the same place. Some countries can afford faster skis, lighter sleds, better prosthetics, and high-tech training tools, while others are just trying to keep up. That means some athletes are already at a disadvantage before they even step onto the ice or snow.
What makes this really controversial is that we still call the Games “fair” because everyone follows the same rules, even though not everyone has the same resources. Rules don’t erase inequality. They just hide it. In the Paralympics especially, technology can make a huge difference in how an athlete moves, which blurs the line between human ability and equipment advantage. So while the Winter Games are still amazing and inspiring, they’re not a pure test of skill alone. They’re also a reflection of money, technology, and opportunity, and that’s why fairness in the Games will always be complicated, not guaranteed.
Whenever we talk about fairness in sports, it feels very similar to what we are taught in school assemblies,that honesty and effort matter more than winning at any cost. Real life has shown this again and again. In the Olympics, two runners who fell during a race chose to help each other finish instead of chasing medals, and the world applauded their humanity more than any gold. In cricket, we’ve seen captains withdraw appeals when they knew a batter was technically out but unfairly dismissed, earning respect from fans and opponents alike. Even MS Dhoni has calmly accepted third-umpire decisions without drama, proving that fairness is bigger than personal gain. These moments remind us that sport is not about money, advanced technology, or flashy advantages—it’s about character. Just like in school, where we clap the loudest for the student who plays fair, fans across the world celebrate athletes who choose integrity over easy success. That is why money should never decide sport—human values should. So, let's grow together recognizing the value of talent, not money!
I think richer teams have an advantage, such as Dallas Cowboys so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because they have a valuation of $13 billion to $13.5 billion which could persuade many judges.
Participants would have many more advantages, getting better training, equipment and getting an amazing diet.
Although, it does not have all the impacts, hence skill is generally what gets you to win not money.
Can you say more on why skill is important?
Of course, I think that if you try hard and use your skill you (Usually) have got natural skill and potential with out a lot of money, but you frequently do not get recognised for it but people who have built the skill from more money and resources may get more recognition.
I think richer teams could buy advantage, so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because if richer teams buy advantage, the other teams may not be able to buy advantage. When teams are playing in a sport it would not be fair if one team gets an advantage, especially if the richer team is paying for the advantages and not trying to win with their own skill.
I think it is not fair because the winter games is not fair because say if you use diffrent shoes during the winter games you can get elimated but if you do not get elimated you might as well just leave the games because you will not get a medle because you are cheating in the games and because if you so get pulled out of the games you are out of temhe games for all of the games because you were clearly cheating in the games then ok i hope ypu liked my writting ok bye🦍👌👍😜🤟👱♂️
I think better tech does give an unfair advantage,so therefore the Winter Games aren't fair because for example if a team or country does not have enough money for better tech,the richer teams gain an advantage in The Winter Games.This improved and more modern equipment includes better coaching staff,better supplies or more superior gear depending on the sport.
I also think that if the tech gives a big upper hand,it should not be used,but if it makes a small difference,it should be fine as long as the organisers of the sport agree on it completely.
Even though some people may think that there should be no technology in sports,I think there should be a bit of it as it can help people break new records and achieve new and better goals.As well as that,I think the equipment in the Paralympics could also be unfair as richer teams/countries could also buy more advanced and modern equipment but some may not.
Finally,as AI and technology are evolving in sports and pretty much everywhere,so I think the cost will be much higher and it might become more unfair in the future of sports.Even though technology helps teams win more and gain an advantage,I strongly think that sport purely relies on skill,not tech.
What do you think,does richness buy better performance?
Yes richer teams can buy an advantage with all of the money they have.This includes better equipment, coaches and training facilities.
However, success of the team is not down to the training equipment. It also relies on individuals dedication, mind set and sporting ability which money cannot buy.
Richer teams can buy an advantage who’s can sometimes lead to unfairness in the winter games.
This includes better sports facilities, better trained coaches and faster equipment. This means that the poorer teams can not afford the more expensive things/ better quality things.
However, it is not just about money it is also about mind set, better training, how good you are at the sport and your ability.
This can also mean the winter games aren’t completely fair as all of the teams can just spend as much as they want to spend which means the richer teams are buying an advantage which is not fair to the poorer teams.
I think that is it kind off fair because the richer teams earn it but they should at least put a spending limit on it as that would be the fairest way to still give the richer teams good equipment.
i think richer teams can buy an bigger advantage, so therefore the winter games aren`t completely fair because some different countries spend more money on newer sports technology. Athletes from Africa, Central, and South America often struggle to medal, highlighting a, "huge difference between wealthier and poorer nations. "
I suggest we could help provide the stuff so poorer nations also have a chance of winning a medal this year, however i don`t think money automatically wins medals. Athletes still have to train for many many years to stay strong, and preform under massive pressure. This tells us that the Winter games are partly fair, but not equal, because while the rules are the same for every athlete. The support is really different compared to every athlete.
Do you agree or disagree? .
Can you explain what you mean by
I think the Olympics and Paralympics are partly fair.
They are fair because all athletes follow the same rules, and the equipment they use must be approved. Athletes still need to train for many years and work very hard to compete. Talent and effort are very important, not just technology.
However, they are not completely fair because some teams can afford better sports technology. Richer countries may have better equipment, training centres, and coaches. this can give their athletes an advantage over athletes from poorer countries.
In conclusion, the Olympics and Paralympics try to be fair, but money and technology can sometimes make the competition unequal.
Can you give examples of sports technology?
Some of these technologies are special running shoes, swimming suits that would reduce water resistance , advanced prosthetic legs for Paralympic athletes.
I could mention also more advanced healing technologies for athletes, motion tracking. All those can be afforded easily by richer countries which could give their athlete more advantage.
I think that richer teams do have an advantage in the Winter Olympics because they can buy higher and newer equipment and tech.For example: North America compared to Africa it is a big difference in riches. There so the equipment North America compared to Africa might help there(North Americas)speed and distance in jumps and on slopes .
Tips and tricks to help this improve :
You could give everyone the same brand of ski’s ( not in the same size ) .
You could use similar or the same amount of tech on each team players ski’s.
You also could not necessarily improve or change the ski’s you could also make sure that they have similar gear and clothing on .
This ⬆️would also help because one year Norway got disqualified because of a special thread they used on their ski jacket.
I think the Winter Games are not completely fair. The winter Games are not fully fair because some countries can afford much better sports technology than others. Wealthier teams can pay for advanced equipment, better coaches, and high-tech training facilities, which can give athletes an slight advantage even if everyone follows the same rules. In some sports where results are decided by tiny margins, like skiing or speed skating, better technology can make a real difference. This means athletes from poorer countries may be just as talented and hardworking but still start with an slight disadvantage. However, I don’t think technology alone decides who the outcome on who wins. Athletes still need years of training, determination, and the ability to perform under pressure. The rules are the same for everyone, but the resources behind the athletes are not. Overall, I think the Winter Games are fair in effort and rules, but not equal in opportunity.
In my opinion i believe having better technology than the others will increase your likelyhood to win ,so therefore the winter games arent fair because the other teams wont have the same equipment with you.I agree that every team has their advantages and disadvantages ,but having better technology than others do make the game easier to you.As a result,it wont be fair and even if you win the game but it would be partly your talent because you used better tech than the others.I believe making a game more fair to all teams ,everybody should use the same technology
Yes, I think richer teams can buy an advantage by using better technology, coaching, and facilities.
The Olympics and Paralympics are still mostly fair because everyone follows the same rules, but athletes from richer teams often have more support, which can make a difference.
I think that richer teams can buy an advantage, so therefore the winter games are not fair in many ways. Richer teams can afford specialist sports equipment and training facilities, giving them an advantage, and countries that can't afford these things will have to work harder than the richer countries, and that isn't fair. How much of an athlete's success is pure talent and hard work, and how much is the opportunities available to them?
Also, in richer countries, where sports equipment and facilities are widely available, more people will feel encouraged to, and be able to, train to be athletes. For example, if you grow up with an Olympic sized swimming pool in your city, or even just free swimming lessons at school, you might feel like you could become an Olympic swimmer, and it would be much easier for you to achieve this dream. However if you grow up in a place without a swimming pool, it would be much harder for you, and you might feel like that's not for you. This means that richer teams have more athletes, and better trained athletes, than poorer teams, and that's not fair.
Maybe the only way to make events like the winter games truly fair, would be to make sure that everyone, no matter where they're from, has equal opportunities.
Yes some richer teams can afford technology which is fair for those can afford but it's not fair enough that every teams can afford. But if every team can afford that would be fair enough.
I think this is not fair, so therefore the Winter Games are not completely fair because athletes do not begin on equal terms. In many winter sports, success depends on the smallest margins, and teams with more funding can afford better equipment, advanced sports technology, and expert coaching. These advantages might only save milliseconds, but at the Olympic and Paralympic level, milliseconds decide medals, records, and careers. I agree with other Topical Talkers who argue that sport should reward talent, dedication, and resilience rather than financial power. When athletes from poorer countries work just as hard but lack access to the same tools, the competition cannot truly be called equal. However, I also understand the opposing view that technology pushes sport forward and can improve safety, performance, and inclusivity, especially in the Paralympics. Over time, innovations can benefit everyone. Even so, fairness should be the priority at major global events. If funding determines success more than ability, the spirit of the Winter Games is weakened. To make the Games more humanitarian and fair, organisers could limit equipment advantages or provide greater support to less-funded nations. This would help ensure that medals reflect skill, effort, and determination, not the size of a country’s budget. This approach would protect sporting integrity while inspiring young athletes worldwide to believe success is possible everywhere.
I think richer countries have the advantage so therefore the winter games isn't fair because richer countries can buy more and better products than the poorer countries,poorer countries have less money and are more limited of what they can buy.
However I don't think money can buy everything it can't buy talent so even if the poorer teams had a millisecond of an advantage they would most likely win because they had an advantage even if it was a small one .
I think that the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games should be fair. Doing a good use of technology can help us improve the planet and, in this case, improve the Paralympic Games. Obviously, we take into account that some countries are much richer than others, as has always been the case. This gives some countries an advantage in terms of sports facilities, resources, etc. Those who participate in the Olympics are considered elite athletes, since they absolutely need to train to compete at that level. With effort and dedication, regardless of your resources (if you have the desire and enthusiasm), you can achieve it.
So therefore, the Winter Games are not fair because if we all had the same opportunities and resources, everything would be fair.
I think technology should be used to benefit all athletes in The Winter Games, regardless of how rich or poor they are. I believe that this is important because it can help to evolve all sports and keep up with any modern changes.
For example, in The Winter Olympics, athletes who take part in sports such as skiing, ice skating and bob-sleighing all wear aerodynamic suits to maximise their speed. This has been achieved through research and technology and benefits all athletes.
However, when training for The Winter Olympics, richer countries may be able to afford better training equipment and places to train. If this is the case, then it would not be fair to other countries who are less fortunate.
Overall, I think that successful athletes should win based on their talent and ability rather than the technology that they can afford. If the technology is not available to all athletes, then it should not be used at all.
Richer teams can buy an advantage Beacause they can buy the best training equipment, best sports equipment and the best coaches to train them in the best way.
However, it is not just about the money it is about mental health, fitness and mindset. Mindset helps the sports players to work in their best way and perform their best.
The other thing that can put player back and give their component an advantage is previous injuries this can cause a delay and cause the players not to perform in their best way as they are not up to their normal working standard.
But money is a big thing as the teams can buy better training equipment, the best coaches and the fastest equipment and better sports facilities and the better recovery systems to help their players recover from an injury better.
But the poorer teams just need to set their minds and say that they can do it and all will be great as they can try and push on and play their best without a lot of money.
I think that richer teams can buy an advantage.As they can afford many more valuable things including better sports technology,better training equipment, better injury recovery things and the best coaches to help them to get to by the best that they can be this means that the wupinter games are not completely fair.
However, although money is a big part of getting an advantage it is also about how much effort you put in and mind set.Everyone always says if you tell your self that you can do it and keep practicing then one day you will get their.
The other part to it is from previous injurys so if you are only just recovering from an injury then you wont be at your absolute best so you just need to keep pushing and train hard.
I do think that the winter games are not completely fair when it is to do with money because the richer teams can get the faster equiptment,better sports facilities,the better coaches to help them to be the best that they can be, also the better training equipment and the best things that can help them to recover from an injury.
Yea they can but then the winter games ain’t really fair so they should stop people from using really good equipment to stop unfairness in the winter sports bye thanks for reading this have a good day
The richer has more advantages and technology but the poorer team has more talent because they know that they are going to play with richest team. So the poorer team will have more talent.
The man who invented the technology has talent not technology .
So I think the poorer team has chance of winning.
At the same time the richest team have more advantages .
So It will be a tough and the audience will be more excited.
I agree...and i thing they should give a limitation on equipment. But also just for equipment but when its about health care they can use any technology. Like no limitation...
If this rule was in Winter Olympic then maybe it will get more fair
I think that advanced sports technology provides significant advantages and rich countries can take advantage of it because it is not fair because there is a difference in the technology of the athletes who do not have access to these technicians or modern technology can lose by 0.4 seconds because of the secrets of powerful sportsmanship. If we look at both sides, the answer is the same. Paralympic technology is allowed at a premium because some athletes without high-tech wheelchairs or artificial legs cannot do it. You know what, if there was a budget limit for the Olympics, in my opinion it does not change who wins the medals but in most cases the rich will probably win even if others are better than you. My last reason and example is that wealth can buy better equipment for people but people can cheat and very good people can pay to help them. In short, this is why the rich will have an advantage in the Olympics but money will not be useful or win in every case. Thank you 🙂
I think this is not fair, because countries with more economic resources that spend more money on technology give their athletes a higher chance of achieving better results compared to countries with fewer technological resources. Although technology is not the only factor, in modern sport it can make a difference.
On the other hand, this technology is helping athletes achieve better and better performances. Therefore, I believe that eliminating technology is not the solution, but it is necessary to set limits on its use so that the differences between countries are as small as possible. This is what the organizations that regulate sports rules do, such as the International Olympic Committee.
I agree because they have the money to by new equipment . It can help them out and so that they are safe and don't have hole's in there kit or have equipment that are worn out . But other teams will be okay because they stick to the same things . So that they can focus on the game and there self . It is fair for every one because they can all take part
I think that the winter games are not completely fair because the financial inequality between counrties can interfere with the game and create an unfair playing feild.
The international olympic and paralympic commities have taken steps to regulate the use of technology and unfair equipment, but although physical rules are not being broken, athletes with custom designed equipment such as precision engineered helmets and high tech skies and skates have greater advantages. While these items meet the technical specification, their high cost and limited acessability can give wealthier nations an unfair edge despite other athletes from poorer backgrounds having the same level of skills and determination.
However, this dosen't have to make a big difference, as skills in individuals vary, so it dosent mean that with the use of technology you will automatically win everything, but it means that its not completely fair.
Some technology is needed much more than others which is the point I'm trying to get across. We need bycicles, stopwatches and electronic scoring systems as without these, the game could be very inaccurate or even not played at all.
Technology that ensures safety is also very much needed for the athletes to be able to feel safe and comfortable while playing that sport.
BUT not every country is able to fund and support everyone equally which is why we should focus on ensuring that every athlete is able to win by skill and not because they may not have as good equipment as others. Technology that should help EVERYONE should not be a privelage only the rich can afford.
In the last few years you saw the development of technology and it's effects on many things and we used it in many things in our daily life but when it comes to sports it's different it can be used in good and bad things
Technology has many advantages in sports but on the other hand it's a highly costed technology which can be bought by mostly rich clubs only but some rich clubs use it wisely without cheating they use technology to make the player healthier and more effective in the game.
But another type of rich clubs that use technology for cheating like making unfair play which can lead to hacking the rules of the sports
To conclude,rich clubs can buy technology but using it wisely but the other type of rich clubs that use it for cheating must be banned from game.
I think richer teams can most definitely buy advantage, so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because some countries are able to afford advanced gear and training systems, as well as expert advice. In these types of competitions, a millisecond can be the difference between gold and silver; the tiniest of changes going a long way. Technology has a major role in sports today and is allowed in the games as long as all tech follows the rules in place. Even then, wealthier countries can afford the best possible quality of equipment. However, money is only a factor of the win. The athletes themselves have to want it, have to have the immense determination and work ethic needed as well as all the gear and training. The training process minus the money takes years and athletes need to stay mentally and physically strong, as they are shaping themselves to perform in front of millions, if not billions; many bending under pressure. The rules may stay the same for every competitor, but the support behind each one is different and that is what makes the games only partially fair, only partially equal. Maybe rules should change so that the games will be much more fair, not giving richer teams the advantage, because sports is not about which team has the most money, but which team enjoys the games, has worked for it and deserves the title, working together for the win because isn’t that what sports is all about?
I don’t think that this would be fair because sports is about skill and attitude, not for technology to do it for you. So if richer teams can afford this technology and if others can’t, this would give an unfair advantage to the richer teams
I think that richer teams can buy an advantage in sport which means that the Winter Games are not entirely fair for all teams, however I believe there are instances where it can be used fairly. Buying advantages does make games that should be reliant on skill become a competition on who can afford the best training facilities for their athletes. Because of this, some people say that all teams should use the same equipment and facilities. I disagree with this statement because especially in the Paralympics some athletes may require specialised equipment for them to train at all, so banning it may interfere with their training more than others. I also think that better technology does not have a large impact on athlete's skills and teams should not be judged if they want to spend more money on their athlete's training.
I'm all for technology and stuff, but it has only made wealthy nations richer, which is a bummer.
Whenever I see a game like the Winter Games, I get so excited at the sheer strength and endurance of the athletes displayed, but then a bobsled costs more than $100, 000way over the earnings of most people in such athletes' whole communities, for a year!
It is a bit of a downer. The Olympic Games should revolve around the athlete's hard work, and their mental strength rather than which country has the deepest pockets or the best science lab. I think Olympics is all about the fight and what a person can do on aerodynamics.
So, if we're looking to save the true Olympic Spirit, then it would mean making sure that everybody has the same kind of equipment. Then it's a matter of skill and natural ability for the winner.
Is it just me, or do we seem to be applauding the engineers rather than the athletes these days?
In my opinion, using technology in training is a good thing, but the downside is that it can be expensive. This means that some teams might not have the resources to use technology to improve themselves, while other teams can afford it. Honestly, using technology in sports isn’t a bad thing; it’s great for self-improvement. However, from my perspective, the cost makes it unfair because some teams simply can’t afford the technology that could help them develop.
I think that Olympics and Paralympics are mostly fair, but not completely.
Some teams can afford better sports technology, which can give them an advantage. Athletes from poorer countries may not have the same equipment, even if they trained just as hard
However, talent and training are still the most important factor, and there are rules to limit unfair advantages. Overall, the games are fair, but they could be improved
Yes richer teams can buy an advantage,so that means that the winter games are not completely fair. As the richer teams can buy better training equipment,faster and better sports facilities, the beast coaches so that they can get to their absolute best and also they can get better injury recovery equipment and people to help them to get to their best again.
Although money is a big part in the winter games mind set and telling your self that you can do things is also a big part as if you tell your self that you can do something then if you work hard and try to get to your best then one day you will get there.
But I do think that money is the main part to the winter games as you can get an advantage because if you have better sports facilities then you can reach your absolute best if you train hard and get the best equiptment then you have an high advantage. Also if you get better injury recovery equipment and people then you can get back up and try to be your best again because if you can't afford as many injury recovery things and people then you wont be your absolute best again.
But I do think that money does give the richer teams an advantage!
I think that the Olympics and Paralympics are not completely fair if some teams can afford better sports technology. When richer countries can buy things like advanced equipment, high tech suits or better training facilities, their athletes start with an advantage that has nothing to do will talent, skill or hard work. This means athletes from poorer countries might be just as skilled but since they do not have the financial advantage, don't get the same opportunities to improve or train at the same level.
However, I don't think that the Games are completely unfair either; all athletes still have to follow the same rules and technology can't replace natural ability, dedication or years of training. Overall, I think the gap in funding makes competition less equal because success can partially depend on money, rather than pure skill.
I think richer teams/people can buy advantages because some sports can use their money for very unfair reasons, for example Fomula 1. Fomula 1 is a sport where u need intelligence good strategies and high speed. And if you want high speed u need a high speed car if you want a high speed car you will need money and if your oponent has more money than you they will most likely have a better car than you so you will have to have a good strategy to beat the other driver.
Formula 1 is also known for its very high technology however you have to keep it in strict rules set by the FIA. When a person or team has lots of money they can have connections and those connections could maybe have a way to get very good cars that are very fast and are in the boundaries that have been set.
On the other hand sports such as boxing dont rely on financial issues it more relies on hard work and dedication to the sport. Since their is no technology in boxing that can really help someone in a fight that means it is mostly baced on hard work and stanima.
Boxing is also a good way to use your own determination to fight even if your from a poorer backround their is still a way to become a professional
I think richer teams/people can buy advantages because some sports can use their money for very unfair reasons, for example Fomula 1. Fomula 1 is a sport where u need intelligence good strategies and high speed. And if you want high speed u need a high speed car if you want a high speed car you will need money and if your oponent has more money than you they will most likely have a better car than you so you will have to have a good strategy to beat the other driver.
Formula 1 is also known for its very high technology however you have to keep it in strict rules set by the FIA. When a person or team has lots of money they can have connections and those connections could maybe have a way to get very good cars that are very fast and are in the boundaries that have been set.
On the other hand sports such as boxing dont rely on financial issues it more relies on hard work and dedication to the sport. Since their is no technology in boxing that can really help someone in a fight that means it is mostly baced on hard work and stanima.
Boxing is also a good way to use your own determination to fight even if your from a poorer backround their is still a way to become a professional
I think that it is not fair so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because a team can just buy an unfair advantage. For example, a team with a low budget can't buy technology and a team with a high budget can buy technology. Also buying sports tech is an unfair way of having a better chance of winning an unfair game. For example, your favorite team is on the field, and they are losing because the opponent has bought a tech to make their kick harder that means your favorite team is not going to stand a chance. Also, when technology is used in sports the team who has it is using the technology not their own skill. For example, you are in a 100-meter dash and the other team’s tech help them run faster without trying you will not also lose but you’ll also become tired while the opponent is still energized for the next competition. Lastly, world records are going to be simpler in break with the help of sport tech. An example is , you are in a jumping competition and you jump say around 10 feet which beats the world record, now you are more than sure that you’ll win until you saw he jumped 20 feet which surpasses your record by 2 times with the sports tech, which is unfair when you can't get that type of technology. In summarization, this is why sport technology is unfair to those who can't afford it.
I think richer team can buy an advantage, because the winter game is fully fair. There are many poor coutry they can not support their player. Also, richer team can get more good equipment and more good condition. For example, in 2024 summer olympian 36 years old archery practice without equipment, and without suitable training condition. But, the other country such as South Korea prepare with good equipment and training condition.
Also, I think the people have limit of their physical. But, we overcome with hard training and technical equipment. I think the swimsuit is good example of the technical equipment. The swimsuit imitate shark scales to make less water resistance, and improve the speed. The swimsuit is not that expensive then other sports.
So, I think the richer team can buy an advantage.
Do you think richer team should be able to 'buy advantage'? Is this fair?
I think it is fair. Because, the player just use money for improve their performance. Also, buying advantage is using their own money so I think it is fair.
I think that they must not be avantajes for anyone so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because they need to play without advantajes or desavantajes, because if not the team that has more money will be always the winner and they will be competing of money, no of what his the best team and this is not a fair play, instead if they put advantajes in all games as a reward for winning, this they will be a fair play ,but only this advantajes they can only used in some specific match ,because in international or global tournaments they will be unfair also,
I think richer teams can buy some advantage, but not much, so therefore the Winter Games are partially fair because there are countries that spend more money than others in facilities, equipment and even people that help the players while training. As a result, there are small advantages that can make a crucial decision which depends on few seconds.
However, those little advantages are fair, because if they weren't, would you think players could practice their sports without any restrictions in this topic?
Moreover, I think that eventhough there are rich countries that rely heavily on technology, and poor countries which only depend on their effort, athletes of all over the world must practice, train and do a big effort while competing. Everyone who reaches a goal or achieves something, has done the best of himself, and I'm sure that he or she had tried and attempted so many times.
So to sum up, in my opinion, rich countries have a bit of help in the ressults and in the players' heath, but to win a propper medal, the athlete must have done a big effort. This shows that the Winter Games are partially fair, but not equal for everybody, something that depends on the situation of each country.
If some teams can afford better sport technology the paralympics still fear because all the countries could spend the money they want for sport technology. I think any country have enough money for buying sport technology but if they prefer to spend their money in reparing old schools or even on the country economy its fine. Because better technologies only helps the alethelets to have better performance on the different sport, the sport technology did´nt have to be the most expensive one you can look for a cheap technology that maybe it adapts better on you than a expensive new sport technology.
I think it shouldn´t be fair that a olimpic teem or athlet are able to use whatever technology to impruve its skills, there should be a limit. But also in any sport wouldn´t be fair if one teem has beter technology than the other, because it whould not have to be with who is better on that but on who was able to buy the best technology. I hope there is a limit about what technology can be used and which one is not. If not, if there is not a limit or rule about it, the the Winter Olimpics whould be unfortunately not fair at all. I don´t think they should ban the technology as a solution, but just the most expensive equipment that whould provide an excessive advantage to the teem. This would not make things completely fair, because richer teems would have the best technology permited, but would be easier for non that wealthy teems to achive the same goals.
I think richer teams can buy an advantage so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because it would not be equal for all teams.
A team with more money can have better sports technology, which is an advantage for the athletes because technology offer different facilities. For example it can be useful for counting how many kilometres or steps are you doing or even how many calories are you burning. Furthermore, it can be also helpful for athletes to train or for competitions.
On the other hand, I think sports technology can not buy everything, athletes need to be profesional and work really hard for their objectives, sports technology it is just a help in their favour.
As a conclusion, sports technology it is something that help athletes to reach their goals, but obviously it does not do all the work.
I think that more wealthy sports teams could get an advantage as they will have enough money to invest in better technology to up level their equipment which will help them. On the other hand, I think that sport is not about the technology that you use but about your talent and skill. Also, if a team has a constant unfair advantage, there will probably be a new rule made to prevent that from happening. Although that may happen, people can only alter rules so much and the teams will probably find a way around them.
I think richer teams buy advantage for sure, but they wouldn't be able, because if you have an advantage of not only technique, but also of appliances and equipment it is unfair for most of the other competitors. Also, inside the competition, before it, in the trainments, all the teams should have the same technology. Because of this, not only the Winter Games, but also lots of other competitions aren't fair. I think we should start thinking about this and that the people who make, who prepare, the tournaments don't allow this advantage in thechnology or equipment. I am allowin tsunami and this is my opinion.
In my opinion, yes, some teams which are richer might be able to buy equipment which will give them an advantage, but in competitions they won't be able to use that expensive technology, since they are not allowed to use it because of fairness. Fairness is, in my opinion, very important, and athletes should compete based on natural skill not the technology they use.
Hello from romania to everyone! This weeks topical talk sure is interesting! In my opinion, i think that buying an advantage can be useful in some specific cases. For example, in england, they had access to flight-simulating technology, and they asked if they could borrow it for the athletes so they could train their athletes to react faster. This is a good way for these athletes to train outside of competitions, just to help their performance overall, I do think that as long as it doesn't directly affect the competition e.g changes to costume or equipment used in competition, it is fair for richer teams to buy advantage.
I think richer teams can achive advanteges that other modesto teams can't, so therefore the Winter Games are not totally fair because a huge amount of countries can't afford really expensive equipment or tools for their players. On the one hand, richer teams can afford some facilites, gorgeous equipment, trainig tools, amazing transport etc. On the other hand, wining the Winter Games do not depend on how rich the team is but on how talented the players are and their dedication on the sport and team.
Taking all the above into consideration, of course richer teams can achive some facilites that can ensure better training for the Games, but It does not mean that they are going to win whether or not , actually it depend on the quality of the players and their effort.
I think richer teams can achive advanteges that other modesto teams can't, so therefore the Winter Games are not totally fair because a huge amount of countries can't afford really expensive equipment or tools for their players. On the one hand, richer teams can afford some facilites, gorgeous equipment, trainig tools, amazing transport etc. On the other hand, wining the Winter Games do not depend on how rich the team is but on how talented the players are and their dedication on the sport and team.
Taking all the above into consideration, of course richer teams can achive some facilites that can ensure better training for the Games, but It does not mean that they are going to win whether or not , actually it depend on the quality of the players and their effort.
I think that the richer teams are buying an advantage so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because then it is predictable that poorer / other teams are going to loose the the match / game. Say in football ,the richer team has better heart moniters ,kits meanwhile the poorer teams have no heart moniters and weak fabric kits ,that is unfair right? (retorical question ) .It is super unfair !
Can you explain how you think better kits contribute to the Winter Games?
In my view, richer teams can buy advantages so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because as they have a lot of money they can be able to access advanced technology which benefits them. But this doesn’t guarantees prizes so this doesn’t mean that others team can’t win. I’ve read that the technology must follow the rules, so they cannot either buy whatever the best for the team is, which is fair.
In conclusion, they have an advantage but this doesn’t mean winning.
Do you think that if you buy better technology you will win?
I think skill also has a big role in these competitions, there have been really talented athletes coming from small countries like Usain Bolt, Modric, Luka Don, so the money and the investments do play a role but I think winning comes from the players.
Yes, I think richer teams can buy an advantage. But it all really depends on your effort and how you choose to spend your time. Having technologies and cool gear doesn't gaurentee that you'll win. It really comes down to whether the coaches and the player really knows how to use it properly and work really hard with it. A team with less money but a smarter plan and more heart can usually beat teams that just throws cash to solve their problems. A real life example was Leicester City's 2016 Premier League win proves effort beats money. Their success came from incredible effort, smart data use, and teamwork, not a big budget. If the team with less money lose to a team with more money, it doesn't automatically prove that teams with more money wins because working hard doesn't gaurentee success, but not working at all gaurentee failure.
In conclusion, money helps you get the tools, but it's the effort and teamwork that actually makes a difference.
I do think that richer teams can fund their athletes equipment for the games, which for more financially unstable teams or teams that are poor won't be able to fund the training tech for the athletes, like training facilities, tech or equipment, and experts or coaches to help improve the athletes abilities, and when actual competitions happens these small advantages or extra training equipment can actually help the athletes to perform better against other athletes and not entirely providing a fair experience in the Winter Games.
And in fact there is actual real evidence where having better technology or gear has improved ones performance in the Olympics like during the 2008 Swimming Olympics in Beijing, the Speedo LZR Racer suit which compressed the athletes torso helped athletes break nearly 100 World records in a little under 18 months, with 98% of medalist wearing it. Not only gear was used but also preparation equipment in training was used in the Paris 2024 Olympics athletes were using a tech which was a wearable strap to track heart rate allowing them to optimize training and prevent burnouts, which these are what richer teams were able to fund for which can provide advantages in training or preparation, and gear when actually playing the sport.
Richer teams can afford to be better, so that leads to the Winter Games not being completely fair because some countries can use and buy more tech to use. This includes sport tech, hiring better coaches and especially the nutrition they get everyday that they need to keep improving and keep winning. When you are competing in can depend on split seconds, these advantages I have just stated matter a lot.
Nonetheless, I don't think money is such a huge factor in winning medals and being a successful athlete, because in the end it all depends on the athlete to work hard and train hard everyday to be successful and keep winning.
I believe that richer teams might have most of the advantages especially with the usages of modern technology helping them improve even further from there expectation, therefore the Winter games aren’t very fair especially for teams who don’t have the sum of money to buy and supply the modern technologies for there sports players.
Although there seem to be an advantage for the team with the highest quality of technologies it all sums up to a person’s effort not the technologies. Yes, technologies may help a player but if the player is to have no passion and no effort in the sport they play it can change the results of there team especially if it’s a team sport.
So in the end of the day modern technology may help a player but it is of no use if the player has no passion or puts no effort into it. A game can also change not from the technology giving the opposing team a win but by how they play, an example is if a player from the opposing team got benched and apparently you’re losing. You can take that to your advantage and play harder and smarter and you might end up winning the medal.
An example of a team with low technology winning against a team with high technology is in the 1980 miracle on ice for hockey, apparently an underdog team of amateurs team known as the “Miracle on ice” team defeated a seasoned Soviet Union team with the best of technologies also considered as the best in the world, while the US had no modern technology and no financial issues they won through strategy, discipline and superior conditioning leaving the world in a state of shock.
Richer teams can definitely buy a bigger advantage. Countries with a higher GDP and a more well known social status tend to advance in sports. This is because they tend to have more money to fund their athletes making them better. This means they can also afford better equipment, get experienced people to train them how to play properly and having a bigger training area such as a court or a gym. For example, Sha'carri RIchardson, a female American track athlete, has won 100m races for 2 years in a row. She is one of the most famous and well known female athletes ever in the world. But I think that not only money can make you win medals. It is also the athlete's effort and confidence that define them. For example, in the year 2022, Sha'carri Richardson (An all time favorite for 100m sprints) was expected to win and bring USA a medal home. But unexpectedly at the last second, a Jamaican athlete (Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce) won the race. This goes to show that determination brings the win, no matter what.
So yes, richer teams that come from richer countries does have an advantage or a head start. But that does not mean they are going to win or is going to be better than the other countries.
I agree because, money doesn't secure the win
I think that the richer teams can buy an advantage in order to win the winter games or any games in general because they simply can afford to splurge on advanced tech like better and faster equipment . Advanced tech gives them a huge advantage because it can help improve on their skills which they can also learn to perfect or improve tiny details which can drastically improve races. For the less wealthy teams which cannot afford expensive gears, it can serve as a huge disadvantage for them even if they trained longer. Plus some richer sports teams can bribe the judges and referees in order to cover up mistakes or win the game.
However just because you have money doesn't mean you can buy skills or talent. Athletes still have to go through many years of training and have a strong mental health because of all the pressure during the race to win. But sometimes it also depends on the country or where the competition is held because some competitions don't let athletes use their own tech and instead both of the teams have to use the exact same gears for the competition. Some examples of athletes like Luka Dončić & Nikola Jokić are NBA stars in basketball that fully rely on their own skills and techniques to win basketball games rather than relying on any advanced technology to help them during games.
Instead i think that the winter games should ban equipment the other teams doesn't have in order to create a fair competition that fully relies on skill instead of technology and AI.
I think more richer who can buy expensive equipment could get a higher advantage , this means that the Winter Games are definitely not fair. They get more valuable and useful technology in the equipment they are using.I also think that because they have a better space and warm-up for training and can use something that doesn't require talent or skill.It gives you much higher oppurtunity of practicing.In my own opinion it is very unfair because people mostly rely on talent and skill and it is very good to practice because you get more exercise and air so it is useful to use your time to practice instead of cheating and using tech.
Therefore this is not fair for poorer teams
I think that the richer teams can buy more thigns like equippment to improve and win more eassy
I agree with the statement because it's true. Imagine technology making breaking records easy. That's crazy!! Records are supposed to be hard to break, that's what RECORD means. Think about you getting a record,working hard for it, day and night practicing. The following week some random kid just steals your record and cheats for it using technology. The crazy thing that shocks you is the referee doesn't count it as cheating! Others might think it's not cheating but if that actually happened to them i dont think they would think that any more and would have the same opinion as me. People may may quit after that but if a lot people think its not fair it might change!
Another reason why I personally disagree with the opinion that the games are fair is that tech doesn't just help you practice,it also helps you stay safe. This is very important because someone could get possibly injured or worse. People might not like this because it makes it ''boring'' for them and not exciting. But I personally think someones life is more important than the excitement of a match or game.
Yes richer teams can actually buy advantage but the richer teams will continue to win cause they use the help of technology to boost their talents but the poorer teams will always loose the game cause they don't have enough money to buy advantage to boost their team. This will also make the game unfair to the poorer team some people that loved their team before will now call them loosers which will make them obviously feel bad and at the same time ashamed of them selves and they may not want to come out to perform again.
I'm not sure about this because... what If the other team that doesn't have the technology and money has
the skills to beat the other team. For example lets say that Lebron James went against a cheerleader. The cheerleader has all the technology and money and Lebron didn't. Lebron would win because he has the skills.
I think richer teams shouldnt be able to buy an advantage as some countries are in war and are just poor in general but some have lots of money and friends that can help them with making more things to give them an edge
I believe that richer teams will have better players and will have to use some of their money to pay for the players to play for them and the lower budget teams will have the players not as good as the higher money budget and will have to pay less for their players so after they have sorted all the players payments they will have roughly the same amount of money so the tech might not be different.
I disagree because If you have more money It will be easier to buy equipment and training machines to help them get a better advantage. Furthermore If you are one of the poorer countries then It would be harder to train with equipment because they don't have enough money and then the poorer countries athletics will more or less have to work as well as train everyday to make them get more money to help getting better equipment.
I disagree because If you have more money It will be easier to buy equipment and training machines to help them get a better advantage. Furthermore If you are one of the poorer countries then It would be harder to train with equipment because they don't have enough money and then the poorer countries athletics will more or less have to work as well as train everyday to make them get more money to help getting better equipment.
In my opinion, if this was true, The Winter Games would not be fair for the other team because if one team can afford better technology, it gives that team an advantage. However, in some cases it could be fair, meaning it depends on what type of technology they have, (or buy). So, in conclusion, The Winter Games would NOT be fair if one team can afford better technology.
In my opinion it is not fair that other teams can afford better equipment because, it makes things unfair because, other teams have advantages while other teams have no equipment, not only that but sometimes the team that has better equipment has the win secured, and other people work hard to be the best but other people just need to buy better equipment, In conclusion it is not fair that other people have better equipment.
I think richer teams can kinda buy there way to victory so therefore the Winter Games are not fair because, People/teams will spend thousands of dollars just to win a game.And the poor/ not enough money teams cant afford the new gears or equipmentment to get a equal percentage of one or the other team to win.Richer teams can kinda buy there way to victory because so type of gear isn't fair to the other players,But also It depends on how the way the team that buys the stuff and how they use it. if they use it wrong or try to abuse it the gear could malfunction or even brake. So yes I do think richer teams can buy there way into victory if they could use it right.
Yes richer teams can buy advantage because they have the money to get the technology
to improve the way they play and they're skills. But then the Winter Games would not be fair. The richer teams have more chances at winning then the other team. But sometimes that's not the case. Therefore, the team that does not have the technology and the money may have the skills to beat the richer teams.
In my opinion richer teams do have an advantage then other teams and that's not fair so here's three reasons why. First, because people with a disability would get very hurt because the players on the other team wouldn't know about that disability and might hurt that player. Another reason is that some players on the opposing team might use that advancement as a cheat code and that would be very unfair. Third, it is also very much unfair because the tech that the other team uses might hurt people without a disability and the injury might be very bad and the other team probably will not be paying for these injury's . Therefore I think The Winter Games are very unfair.
In my opinion I think it is unfair for teams who can afford technology to use it.Some teams may not be able to afford it.Therefore the game will be unfair.Some coaches may help their team cheat with the technology they have.
i think that using technology would not be fair, in case the other countries do" not have the "advanced" technology as other countries. I don"t even think that they should add anymore technology to games, it's like changing the whole game itself! Richer teams would have big advances and more tech. But still even if they have more advances you also need skill. For example: what if Lebron went against an eight year old advanced tech, Lebron would still have won. Still i do not think more tech needs to be in games.
No, the Olympics are not fair if a richer team buys an advantage because then that team would have more practice and have machines that can give tips for how to play better in the Olympics and other teams would have less of a chance to win compared to the richer teams if a richer team gets tech then it increases the chances of winning by 50% so no I do not think the Olympics is fair if a team can buy an advantage.
In my opinion, I think that if a team is richer, it can give its athletes a significant advantage over their rivals. This would make the Winter Olympic Games on a small amount unfair, since teams with more money could spend it to help their athletes with new technologies. Nowadays, technology in sports is evolving very fast and at a fast amount , and I think that although technology is very useful and necessary in areas like medicine or education, in sports it is not as essential. I also believe that technology does not influence sports as much, what truly makes a difference is the athlete.
In summary, I don’t think it is fair that rich teams spend money on technology while those fewer ones cannot. This gives some disadvantage, but I don’t think it is significant enough to justify banning it.
i think that people with more money can buy better equipment and its not fare for the people that participate that dont have enough money to buy good equipment
Yes. I think richer teams have a much bigger advantage. It is extremely unfair. Rich teams have lots of money so they can buy the latest and best equipment. They have more money to spend on their equipment and clothing and technology. For example we at the paper aeroplane. It was much easier to win if you had a bigger aeroplane or better resources. My group had a small piece of paper and we couldn't win. I don't think it is fair for countries to enter the olympics if they don't have an equal starting point.
I agree with this statement because I believe that it is definitely true. First, if you have technology then it makes breaking records a piece of cake. For example if you have technology that makes you play and perform better then you will most likely break a record more easily. Second, the tech will most likely make you probably break a record without even knowing it. For instance, if you have technology it might make you run faster or jump higher, it might just make you break the fastest sprint record or highest jump record in the Olympics. Thirdly, depending on what technology you have you might break multiple records without even doing anything. To explain, depending on the technology like a third robotic leg or new robot insoles you might break a record by not even doing anything or just by being there. Lastly, records won’t be that impressive. To elaborate, if people are out breaking records here, there, and everywhere, it won’t be that impressive. In conclusion I agree with this statement because people will just be breaking random records effortlessly, so then it won’t be impressive.
I think the Winter Games are fair because technology can help athletes improve their physical capacity but it can also help to have involvement and try everything possible to improve and the positive thing about this is that the effort and preparation before a competition can be more important than the competition itself, the effort is free so it is not necessary to use technology.
I think that better sports technology like streamlined skis and suits will help make new world records, but using them when you have competition is unfair as buying sophisticated technology for the teams gives a severe advantage up to 50% according to scientists.
Another example of this in the winter games are using advanced materials in biking that makes the bike lighter. This is also a major advantage. Also the AI big superpower nations (America, Asia, Europe) have access for advanced weather technology which will help certain teams ready for the day as they will forecast the weather.
I'd propose to the Olympics to add 2 short rules that'll help bring equality to the Winter Games (not equity):
1. Only bring the items specified by the Olympics on their official website and else your item you brought will be taken.
2. The Olympics should provide all of the items.
3. The Olympics should provide funding for the training sessions
Should the Olympics provide the items, or should the equipment be funded by the rich?
Hello topical talkers
I think that richer teams could buy an advantage but I also think they can’t . Let’s start with they can buy advantage
Firstly there could be a technological gap this is because wealthier teams could afford high-tech suit .let say skaters the team could afford and buy more advance skates. Richer teams in any sport could buy data based training methods to provide better training they could also afford stuff like AI machines and others .
On the other hand they could also not buy an advantage .This is because no amount of money can buy the physical strength and ability required to win the game ,this is why that normal training would be essential to win.Normally equipment is strictly forbidden and is checked that no one has it. The organisers want it to be fair by following the ground rules aiming to keep all the games as fair as possible and if you win you will feel like you actually deserved the win
And this is why I think both ways.
Thanks for listening buy topical talkers👋
I believe that people who have more money should not use it against others, it would not be fair. People should use their own talent to win. Everybody can play sports everyone can take part but they must be willing to play by the rules. If you don’t follow the rules then people could stop. Stop something that they love. That’s why I think people should respect and follow the rules.
If some teams can buy technology for them to win I think it's unfair for more disadvantaged countries.For example,I think it's unfair because you might run faster than someone but if they use technology to get faster than you they're gonna win because the other countries don't have expensive technology like them.I also think they should ban technology because the technology in sports because it gives countries with more money an advantage and countries with low money a disadvantage.Do you think the same as me?
I think that countries that have more money do buy a better advantage as they have more money to spend on advanced tech to help boost competitors training.But countries that are wealthy may still not buy things as they rely on pure talent and have better things to focus on than winning the Olympics. I believe that countries should not pay for advanced tech as not all countries have enough money;and when it comes to the competition there will be no advanced tech for them and they will not know how they do alone.If I got to decide whether to spend the money on the olympics or not for the countries competitor i would only spend i little amount as I rely on pure talent which I have a lot of.That is why I think that richer teams buy an unfair advantage .
By IMAGINATIVE_EFFORT :)
I disagree because it wont be fair to the other teams that don't have that much good stuff so that would lead to the richer teams technically cheating. Also the people that play may come from poorer countries like sudan and chad those are some countries so they wouldn't be able to buy better stuff.
Indeed,they can buy an advantage if they have more money they can better equipment, for example for track and field athletes can buy better spikes or better racing cloth and even better obstacles for running drills when winning games can depend on scores of 0.001 and 0.01 seconds a tiny advantage can create an enormous difference.
But in modern day sports competition, technology plays a huge role in practice and training, but everything has to lie under the legal rules and regulations of the championships.
However you need drive and determination to win sports,you need to be strong-willed and ready to make sacrifices to reach the top,fancy equipment and lots of money is not key its natural skills.
I think richer teams really have an advantage among other teams that doesn't have the same budget,so therefore the Winter Games aren't totally fair,the richer the team is, the more money they can spend in technology,better equipment, in recovery sessions, in more intense workouts and in better coaches, this means that the players have equipment with a better quality and advantages,for example the fiber carbon plates in running shoes, and if a player is injured they can recover faster with the technology.
To sum up, it is very clear the richer teams have an advantage among other teams that don't have a high budget, but it doesn't mean that the athletes don't have to work out as the others,it is just a slight advantage that in a long term could get better results with less effort.
Although I think that money can buy an advantage, I am of the opinion that the Winter Games are still fair because equipment has to follow an expansive set of rules and regulations. These cause the negative effects of technology usage to diminish as every team is able hit the limits of these regulations. This causes the Winter Games to stay fair and competitive.
I believe that if better sports technology is banned the sports will stagnate and lose their attractiveness because the sports will become boring for the audience since there will be no new records or major advancements.
I think richer teams have an advantage so the Winter Games are not that fair anymore because these richer teams have the ability to buy more resources and better sport equipment that give them an unfair advantage against others. This lets the wealthier teams do better in competitions and makes them climb up the leaderboards easily even if their athletes are not that good. Because these teams have the money they still have more chances to try when an attempt fails. Though there are some teams that don‘t have the money to upgraide to better equipment so it‘s unfair for them and they don‘t have the chance to reach the level of well developed teams even if the athletes have the potential to win.
In earlier times sports didn‘t have to rely on technology, but more on the athletes themselves because the technology wasn‘t that well adapted. Now the talent of the athletes has become more useless and your team only survives when it has a lot of money e.g. In F1 nowadays drivers like Max Verstappen who have talent still can be kicked from the team anytime because teams don‘t care that much about the talent anymore but more on complex technology to gain advantages and wealth.
In my opinion, richer teams can definitely buy some advantages, but they cannot buy everything. Money allows teams to afford better training facilities, experienced coaches, advanced technology, and high-quality equipment. For example, in the Winter Games, small improvements in skis, suits, or sled design can make a huge difference in speed and performance. Wealthier teams can also invest in sports scientists, nutritionists, and psychologists to help athletes perform at their best.
However, money alone cannot guarantee victory. Talent, discipline, determination, and mental strength are just as important. Even with the best technology, an athlete still needs years of hard work and natural ability to succeed. History has shown that athletes from less wealthy countries can still win medals through dedication and passion.
So while richer teams may buy certain advantages, they cannot buy true talent, courage, or the will to win. In the end, sport should be about both opportunity and human effort working together.
thank you topical talkers 🌹
I think the winter games will be unfair because the players are going are going to be playing the same game for every round and they always win.But if you don’t play the same game all the time then it will be fair for the other players and it will be a fun Winter Olympics.
Yes i think richer teams can by an advantage because instead of them buying things to support the countries and to make everyone happy them just spend it on sports technology and that doe s not help because they can just find out how their doing but the technology like AI can tell lies and it can tell your things that you might believe but actually are not.
Yes I think it is unfair because they may win more medals which makes less openings for poorer teams have less chance to win medals.
Which is really unfair.
Thank for reading.
I believe that richer teams can buy advantage which makes the Winter Games unfair because richer teams can have greater funds that they will use on sports technology.This includes faster equipment such as the the board in skeleton , the richer country will have a lighter and a thinner board to go faster and the poorer country will have a thicker board and will not go as fast. More wealthy countries can afford to invest money in top quality coaching and in the places they rent out whilst training as well as hiring nutritionist and psychologists to help with the athletes whole well being.
This makes poorer and not well funded countries have a lower chance in winning the race.